We will get started in another minute or two. This is the City of Reno Planning Commission meeting. Today's date is Wednesday, April 15, 2026. The time is 6:01 p.m. Uh we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Williams. Please stand to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible for all >> A2 roll call. Madame clerk >> David Jockman >> here. >> Jacob Williams >> here. Manny Bera absent. Christina Delvier >> here. >> Tina Gianiantini here. Carrie Roire absent. Alex Walto >> here. >> We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. >> All right. Moving on. A3 public comment. Madame clerk. >> 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 agendaized 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 afforded three minutes. If you are attending the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Um, we did receive correspondence for this first general item. Those were forwarded to the commission and entered into the record. Um, that said, I don't have any public comment in person or online for opening public comment. >> All right. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time and I will uh remind you that you have the opportunity to speak under every agenda item as well. If you're here to speak about a specific agenda item, I encourage you to do so at that time. Seeing as though there are no requests to speak in chambers at this time, we will now move to item A4, approval of the agenda. This is our April 15, 2026 agenda. Can I get a motion to approve? >> Commissioner motion to approve. >> Commissioner Williams, second. >> Motion and second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> Motion carries. We will now move to approval of the minutes. This is from our April 1st, 2026 meeting at 6 PM. Can I get a motion to approve those minutes? >> Commissioner Gfantini. Motion to approve. >> Commissioner Ovr second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> And an abstension from Commissioner Williams who was absent for that meeting. Moving on to staff announcements. Uh item B. Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple quick announcements. Uh coming up at the city council meeting next Wednesday, uh they will provide direction on a potential initiation of a text amendment related to data centers. As you recall, that was postponed from a previous meeting. Um also initiation of a text amendment related to indoor live entertainment within the entertainment corps. They will also consider the TRAO grid annexation which was a condition of approval on the TGO um battery storage system conditional use permit that this board approved. Um lastly, the Ridge Park zoning map amendment and Clearacre Commons master plan amendment and zone change will also be considered at next Wednesday's meeting. >> Thank you, Mr. We will now move on to our public hearings for tonight. We will begin and take these in order. First item is item C1. This is a staff report for possible action. Case number LDC26-000059, Wilch property side setback deviation. We will begin with a presentation from staff. Believe Mr. Foster. >> Good evening, members of the planning commission. Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. Um, you may have noticed that Mike and I apparently got the same memo about our attire for tonight. Maybe the gentleman back here as well. Um, and yes, I am back for yet another major deviation. Uh, this time the Wilch property side setback deviation. Uh the project site is about 0.16 acres in size uh located at 30 Robin Place near Hunter Lake Elementary. It's currently developed with a single family home and the request before you is a major deviation to reduce the required sideyard setback from 5 to 2 and 1/2 ft. Uh the project site is surrounded by single family residences and the key issue that staff analyzed is compatibility with surrounding uses. The master plan land use is single family neighborhood. Uh there are three goals and policies on the screen that are in support of the proposed request and the zoning district is single family 5 units per acre. Some background uh the single family home with a singlecar garage was built in 1954 uh and there's also a carport that is attached to the garage uh which encroaches into the rear setback. The project proposes replacing the carport with a new garage to store the owner's truck camper which does not fit in the existing garage or carport. Um, and the applicant is available to talk more about that later should you wish. Uh, the corner of the proposed garage would extend into the side setback for a length of approximately 6 feet and a total encroachment of about 9 square feet and that's in the area shown here. The proposed garage utilizes the carport footprint and does not encroach further into the rear setback and staff is recommending condition number five to further limit or to limit further encroachment into the or expansion into that rear setback. Turning to compatibility with surrounding uses, uh the surrounding parcels are developed with similar single family homes. The corner of the proposed garage would encroach into the side setback about 45 ft from the street which would almost be imperceptible. The proposal does not compromise the health, safety or welfare of the adjacent property owners. And in fact, the adjacent property owner to the uh right, which is shown in the picture at the bottom of the screen, um has submitted a letter of support and staff is recommending the standard allowable days and hours of construction, which is condition number six. Here are the recommended findings for a major deviation. Staff can make all recommended findings. And here's the recommended motion. Again, the applicant and the applicant's representative are here and available to dive into things further should you wish. Um, and I'm available for questions. >> Hearing that the applicant is not making a presentation, is that correct? But would is available for questions should we have any. Okay. We will then move to disclosures from the commission. Starting in person, Commissioner Gonfini >> spoke with representation for the project and read and reviewed materials. Familiar with the location. >> Uh, Commissioner Jockman read and reviewed emails and materials pertaining to the item. >> Commissioner Williams, same. >> Commissioner Delvr, same. >> Commissioner Alto, same. >> We will now move to public comment for this item. Madame Clerk. >> Yep. First up, we have Nicole Commons. Nicole, just state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. >> Hi, thank you for taking my time. My name is Nicole Commons and I'm here to strongly oppose the proposed project. Um, I live in this neighborhood and the request to reduce established setback requirements is inappropriate and poses a direct threat to our character of our neighborhood um and the stability of the way that um our neighborhood is. Um these standards are not arbitrary. There was a reason these standards were put together. Um they exist to protect our residents privacy. It ensures thoughtful development and prevents overcrowding. I think that's the biggest point right here is that um approving this will set a dangerous precedent and can lead to a snowball effect out throughout the whole neighborhood. Um our homes are in an area that are already built really close together. I don't know how familiar you are with that area, but they're very close together. We have small parcels. Um and once a setback is approved um even once it's going to encourage others to seek the same exception over time this is going to result in homes building being being built very close together which is going to be detrimental to our character of the neighborhood that we all bought into which are the older houses. Um it's very walkable area. It's a very familyoriented neighborhood. Um we're located right next to a school um um we all are outside. we talk with our families there. Um, this is one of the defining qualities of our community and with us trying to be on top of each other, I don't think this is appropriate. Um, if you continue looking through the documentation, there was some documentation from Donna Keats, which was our neighborhood advisory board. Even she says that this does not fit within the character of our neighborhood. So, even she is against this. Well, she says she likes it, but then there are things against it. So, I want to make sure that you've really looked through everything that is stated um for this um setback that they're asking for. Um and this is just because they need a place to put their truck. Um I don't think this is appropriate. Um and so I respectfully urge you to request or to reject this request um to benefit our neighborhood um and try to keep the neighborhood and the character of our neighborhood um intact. Thank you. >> Thank you, Nicole. Next up, is it Bonnie? Go ahead. Oh, you requested not to. Sorry about that. Bonnie did not wish to speak, but is in opposition. Um, next we will move online to Beth Dory. Beth, just unmute your mic. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Yes. Hello. I'm trying to get back to my other screen. Just a sec. Um, I sent you all emails regarding this. Um, I talked to the architect for this project and he signed a setback letter without obtaining a stake survey question. How can this commission approve a major deviation for the reduced setback request without validating the true boundary? The house was built in 1954 when uh when was the last survey of record done. without knowing these answers, you should deny this request and put it as a condition of approval that a recent stake survey uh should be done. In these old neighborhoods, it's not uncommon for fences to be way off from the true boundary. Of note, this house is located in the ferris subdivision and there are CCNRs which could still be active and have sideyard setback conditions. these things uh you should consider before you make your decision. Thank you. >> Thank you, Beth. With that, I do not have any additional request to speak forms in person. We do not have anyone online with their hand raised. >> Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none, we will now clo close public comment on this item and move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Delvr. >> Got it. Okay. Sorry about that. Um, I have a couple questions and and part of it was brought up um by by Beth and and Jeff, I'm just kind of trying to understand how how this does work like and I couldn't tell from the one um document you shared that shows the the property itself, but did they has there been a recent measurement and and do we know uh if this fits within that? And just sort of in general, what what sort of happens if if it doesn't does it get grandfathered into, you know, one property or another? I'm just kind of curious as to what what that actually means. >> Commissioner Delvr, I assume that was for me. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so your question is, has there been a recent survey? Is that effectively the question? >> Correct. Correct. And just in general, not for this item in particular, but like what what are some of the things that we look at? What are some of the standards we have? What are what's some of the processes we go through to make sure that we are looking at a person's uh property in its entirety? >> Okay. So, um I am not specifically aware of whether or not a survey was done. Uh Ken, has a survey been done? >> We did not do a survey. >> Okay. So the that's the architect and apparently a survey has not been done. We don't require a survey to be done um at this stage of the game. So it's not unusual that um that we are evaluating an application for a major deviation without the benefit of having had a survey done. Um but that's just that's has not been part of our process. Mike, do you have anything else that you would chime in on that particular element? >> No, Mr. Foster's correct once again Mikey for the record that we would not require a boundary survey for consideration of this application. >> So and Commissioner Delvr regarding the totality of the parcel and other considerations. I'm not sure that I understand your question. >> Well, I mean I think Mike just answered it. We don't we don't measure and we don't really care. we can people could just build on other people's potential property if we don't if we don't require that they do a site survey basically. >> Yeah. And and if >> I just want to make sure I understand if if you're um kind of following up on Beth Dory's comment correct um she's brought that up before >> um on multiple occasions >> and like it or not this is the process. So even at the building permit stage for example for fences um we don't require a survey to show exactly where the property line is um and again like it or not that's the process. So um we if if there is something where there's an encroachment or a potential encroachment uh the city considers that a civil matter and um it's not something that we uh get involved with. >> Understood. And then obviously the neighbor is that's the same neighbor that said this was fine. So hopefully they're they have an understanding. Um but another another question I had is um and I just I couldn't quite tell from some of the the content that we had and maybe it's in um one of the other documents or maybe it's in a different presentation. But I'm just trying to figure out like what what this looks like and why it needs to be so so big. Like why why it needs these I'm not saying it's big. It's not that big. like why it needs these extra feet if that makes sense. >> Sure. So, we're going to Okay, here's my presentation again. So let's Okay, so on the site plan here, um you can see that in the area with the kind of yellowish circle, that's the encroachment, that little triangle, a total of about nine square feet over the distance of of approximately six linear feet, which is a tiny tiny deviation or encroachment into the site setback. Um the reason that is is um and and by the way the as I pointed out in the presentation the existing carport um already encroaches into the rear setback. So it's already an existing non-conforming structure. Um and the proposed garage um was designed so that it didn't uh encroach further into the rear setback uh but instead uh uh just has a minor encroachment into the side setback. As to why it's the size that it is um is specifically to um be able to house the owner's truck camper. Um, and if we go to the photo here, you can see the truck camper in the upper left corner and the applicant is here and can speak further about that. But essentially, um, as I mentioned in my presentation, this vehicle does not fit in the existing garage due to the height, um, nor does it fit into the existing carport for the same reason, due to the height of the vehicle, perhaps even the length. And so as a result, the owner currently parks the vehicle either on the street or in the driveway. And um while staff didn't get into the benefits as much of potentially removing the vehicle from the current parking locations, one could argue that um uh by allowing a place for the vehicle to be parked inside of a structure on the property that that's a net benefit to the neighborhood in terms of removing the vehicle from the street. um and you know kind of outside of the the public ride ofway for uh other vehicles and pedestrians etc. So, um, Chris, would you like to come or anyone like to come address the size of the vehicle or anything else in terms of and uh, Commissioner Delvr, that is part of your question, correct? The why the structure needs to be as big as it is proposed to be. Commissioner Delvr. >> Commissioner Delvr, can you hear me? >> I can. Yes. Okay. Sorry. >> No problem. So, that is part of your question though. Why the vehic uh designed as big as it is? >> Well, I just just sort of in general, yes, I guess. Um, and then is this considered like because I know my my old CCNRs we couldn't have certain vehicles there at all and so that was part of So I just didn't know if it was is this like an RV? Is this just a truck that they want to house? Um, and I understand you know obviously getting it off of the street is is a good thing. And I think Beth also brought up um CCRs. I don't know if there are any for that neighborhood but >> and I also saw your condition five to uh not allow any more on the rear setback. Um but again, just kind of wondering, I guess if it's a CCR issue, that's that would be dealt with with the neighborhood, not not the city. >> That's correct. >> Yep. Ken, is there anything else that you can add on the size of it? >> Um sure. >> U Ken Rose, architect for the project. uh before you right now. Uh one of the things well of many things we went through to design this project so it would fit in the envelope that is available. Um the the truck is almost 8t wide. The garage door needs to be a little bit wider than that. So we're going to have a 9 foot door. The garage will be about 12 feet wide. We have to have structure on the side of it. And with the camper shell on it, it's 20 feet long. So to get out of the truck after you park it and get around to the front, get around to the back require a couple of feet on either side. So that's why it's the size of that it is. 26 feet is the outside measurement. 25 feet is the inside measurement. So that gives him basically two and a half feet at the end and two and a half feet at the front. We kept the building as low as we could so we could put the truck in underneath the um garage door. It's overhead garage door. We'd like to have a couple of like six 10 in 12 in of clearance when it's fully loaded on the top. And that's what we've done to keep the slope keep the roof as low as we can. It's lower than the adjacent garage and it slopes to the back of the property. So the drainage goes not into the culdeac but into the back of the property. It's a single slope. It is a metal siding and a metal roof which is fireproof. So that's a um a deterrent that can be applied to allowing it to go into the setback because that's one of the reasons we have a setback is to protect the neighbors from fire. And um another benefit I think is when the city takes its snow plows and runs it snow plows through the culde-sac or when it's working out in the street or when the kids are out there playing that big truck is not in the way. And that truck is a recreation vehicle. It's not used daily. So that truck would be in this garage for weeks at a time. so that his personal vehicles that he uses for work and his fiance's vehicle that she uses for work can park in the driveway in front of the garage. That opens up the pulack. I think that is a measure of safety and not a threat to the public. And one thing I did hear is the color of the garage. Uh dark charcoal. Does it have heat? Is it going to rise the heat index? Well, that's not true. Um, it reflects heat. Also, a metal roof is corrugated, not a flat surface. It's not glued to the substrate. There is air space between the metal roof and the roof deck. That airspace ventilates. So, it reduces the heat of that radiating down into the house. And because it ventilates, it keeps the roof a little bit cooler. That's why we specify it in schools. That's why we specify it in a lot of other um public works. Now, last project I did was an incline village. Fire department required a metal roof, required fireproof sighting because of an extreme fire hazard area. Is there any other questions that I can answer for you? That's all I have for now. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Commissioner Williams, can I ask one question before you sit down, please? We don't get the liberty, I don't think, of seeing your final drawings here, but did you mention that the proposed uh garage is is lower, the height is lower than what is existing? >> Would you like me to show you something? >> Would you mind? Okay. I have a fancy dancy pointer right here, but I'll just uh can't find it, so I'll use my pen. Um, this is the peak of the rope. slide down to the back of the property. This is the height of the roof that's adjacent to it. This is the height of the house. Is that understood? Okay. So, the slope that comes down here is a low sloping roof, but it will have a standing seam or a corrugated metal roof on it, which expands and contracts and can ventilate itself and is fireproof. That goes for the siding, too. You're looking at the lower part. The siding will be corrugated metal or standing seam metal also because that's part of the fire protection package for one hour protection from fire. The garage door that we're proposing matches the existing garage door which is actually gray and black. So we try to do our aesthetic values to tie this into the existing neighborhood. try to make it safe and try to make it less visible. That's why it's pushed back. Make it as small as we possibly can and still be a usable space. >> Wouldn't do us much good. He gets out of his can't get out of his truck once he parks it in the garage. >> All right. Thanks for explaining that. >> I have more, but uh Commissioner Jockman, I'll ask a few questions here. First one for Mr. Foster. So, we heard that the I I would assume that the uh property owner that's adjacent there at 50 Robin Place uh would be the one that's the most impacted by this. And is it correct that they've provided a letter of support for the project? >> Yeah, I'm not sure the exact address, but it's the property to the right or to the east southeast of the existing house. Yes. The side where the garage is proposed. >> Okay. And then the um it was touched on a little bit by the architect. One of our findings is for public safety. This uh proposal has gone before fire. Is that correct? And they've reviewed it >> and fire did not have any concerns. >> Okay. Uh I'll I'll I'll wait for a minute if anyone else has any other questions. >> I got one for Jeff. Um, tell me real quick. Um, this comes off to me as generally being allowed by right if we weren't encroaching on that setback with the fence to the property line to the what we'll call east. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yeah. So if if if the property wasn't already I mean we have a setback issue in the back it seems like already but if this was shortened or pushed back within those things he would be allowed to build this with by right. >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. >> And it's worth probably it's probably worth pointing out that um when the applicant originally came in they were talking about um increasing the setback or sorry increasing the encroachment into the rear setback. And correct Ken. And then when we talked about it, we said, "Well, okay, rather than increase that encroachment, which would end up being a larger area, a larger encroachment, >> um why don't you look at tucking it a little bit closer to the house, staying within the existing encroachment in the back, and then that resulted in that net of approximately nine square feet of encroachment into the site set back. So, it was kind of a trade-off. Um but in in in the final analysis, the sideyard encroachment is a smaller area of encroachment as a result of of that uh design um tradeoff. >> Um okay, that's thank you for that. One one last thing. Um I think the last time we dealt we had this major um deviation which you are always so blessed to handle for us. Um I I express uh and trying to understand like where is a commission, where is a commissioner am I supposed to draw the line or where am I supposed to make these decisions that sometimes you know I might not personally agree with or uh because we are always seeing this 50% right it's the last one I think was from 5T to 2 and 1/2 ft too with the addition for the um extra bedroom um I understand the civil responsibility I deal with that in a a personal capacity about lot lines and adjustments, but is are we saying that that process can't be added to this procedure when we're talking about 50% reductions in lot lines? That the city we can't adopt a a requirement that says that these things should be um the lot line should be surveyed prior to these greater reductions in in the setback. That's a big procedural question that I would probably defer to Mike as a kind of a larger policy procedural type of >> I would say that if if that was a concern that you were worried about the survey that you could certainly add a condition requiring that a survey be completed to demonstrate that it that it is indeed um the setback is measured from the the survey property line. >> Okay. But I guess what I'm hearing is that it'd be easier to do that at this level than change of city policy what's been established for quite some time and generally is civil. >> Correct. >> Which I understand. Okay. All right. That's all I got. Thanks, Jeff. >> You bet. >> Commissioner Jaclyn, I have a follow-up question to that. So, the the concern in that public comment is about building a structure or something that's deviating with this from that setback and it's so close that it might end up in someone else's property. So can you explain to me the process? Okay, we've approved if if we approve the setback deviation, they're going to come in for what and then what is verified to ensure that they build what they say they're going to build. So, the next step after the approval of the major deviation, uh, should that move forward, would be a building permit that would need to come in and demonstrate substantial compliance with the plans as presented um during the major deviation review process. And that's condition number one that says, you know, when you submit a building permit, it has to look substantially like uh the, you know, what was initially analyzed. you don't get to kind of say look look over here and then I'm going to go do something over there kind of a thing right >> so that that helps so the point at the point at time where perhaps okay we've approved the deviation they're now constructing something that's close to someone else's property as that construction is occurring if someone has a concern about that deviating or I shouldn't say deviating uh protruding onto their neighbor's property Is that the point at which that concern should be addressed? Say they didn't follow, they're not substantially conforming and they're in the neighbor's property with their construction. Is that the point at which it would be most appropriate to lodge that concern? >> So, you're saying that after the building permit is approved and they're in in construction >> when they're Yes. when they're in construction and that that uh construction is not in line with what the building permit said it would be. >> Right. I mean, and that would just be part of any building permit and occupancy, you know, review process by uh the building compliance staff to make sure that it was built per per plan. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Um one final question and this is about the neighborhood. So when I reviewed these materials, I seem to notice that there are a number of structures in the neighborhood that visually online appear to be within some of these this very setback that we're considering approving tonight. In your review, did you what what have you observed in the neighborhood with regard to those setbacks? Whether or not they were approved visually, I'm seeing a lot of other homes that appear to deviate from the standard setback there. >> Okay. So I think the key word that you used was online. Help me understand. Are you looking at the city's GIS system and looking at from above and looking at parcel lines in relation to structures? >> I'm looking at the WO regional mapping system website. >> Okay. So you're looking at >> identifies parcel lines to a reasonable degree of certainty. >> Yeah. And that's and there in lies the rub, right? That that those lines are not meant to be uh you know gospel. the the Mike and I had this conversation with a gentleman the other day at the counter. The th those lines are are an idea of where you know kind of the shape of the parcel and you know where the boundaries are. But all one typically has to do is look at those lines as they line up with fence lines and sidewalks and things and you can generally see that they're typically off by x number of feet. Um, and that would be as a result of the angle of the photography and you know, kind of I'm not by any means a GIS expert, so but you can just see that those lines are not uh exactly on the property lines. Mike. >> Yeah. And and to add to that, um, typically when when these are designed, um, the architect, for example, Mr. Rose, is not designing off our GIS system. he's designing off perhaps the the recorded subdivision map which is very detailed in terms of bearings and distances on property lines. Um that would be the accurate thing to go for. Also in these older neighborhoods as you mentioned just looking at the area it's clear that that there's two other homes on that very culde-sac that are encroaching into setbacks and we see that a lot in these older neighborhoods that were built you know before current standards were in place. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh yes, if the applicant representative I believe would like to add in please do so. >> Uh Ken Rose again typically uh when we start our basic designs, preliminary designs, we're going we're going off of measurements. We're going off of the detailed measurements and angles of the property line that are on the webs, not the websites, but documented surveys that have been performed in the past. Those dimensions don't change. The earth changes once in a while and maybe a property line gets moved over the process of time an inch or two, but the dimensions are stone. the arcs of the the curves are listed that length is missed. Everything is it's in stone. That's what we work off of. If I have to be five feet from a property line, I use that dimension to go five feet. If if the property line shifts, so does the house. Now the problem is basically it's a property line that that your property and my property the setback is a different issue. It's the city sets the setbacks so you can get utilities through there so you can have personal space to get around the buildings. So I think that's something for the city to to to think about is the setbacks. Can they be flexible? Um I know from my experience sometimes we have to build projects that are zero property line setbacks and they have 24-hour construction. So, the process, I think, adapts itself to some the need and the need has to adapt itself to the process. It's it's a joint issue. The neighbors next door, they love it. They're they like the fact that our the garage is going to match their roof, but they don't have an issue with the encroachment because there's no windows there. It's just fireproof place. Anyway, that's just wanted to deal with you about how we set the property lines for our design, how we use them. That's our guideline. That's the holy grail. If we're going to go over a property line, we're going to have to go talk to somebody else. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the commission? If not, we can move into deliberations. >> All right, deliberations. >> Anybody? Nobody. Uh, Commissioner, >> go ahead. >> You want to go, Christina? Okay, Commissioner Williams, for the record, I'll start. Um, I've struggled with these 50% setbacks since I started on the commission. Um, I think setbacks in general are meant to keep a decent amount of space uh between property lines. Um I don't think I think a way to ensure that we were doing the right thing would be to make sure that the property lines are I used my first house that I owned there was a general rule of thumb that anytime a fence went down because we were an older neighborhood that fence was moved and particularly into open space and so as the years went on the fences continued to move backwards increasing people's property lines. So I mean that kind of stuff happens. Um I I think it's an easy ask when we're talking about making a 50% reduction in in the setbacks. Um just to ensure that the measurement that they are taking is is what it is and hasn't moved and hasn't been encroached on over the I don't know 60 years that this house has been here. Um I also understand that the in the reality is this is that we are only talking about a certain section of this because 95% of this is allowed by right. So, um, you know, I'm sensitive to understand that. And, um, I don't know. I can make all the findings. I'm sure. I just these 50% reductions have caused me to wonder if there's a better process about making uh, moving things to 2 and 1/2 ft continually. And that's what we've been seeing lately, at least in my time. So, those are my thoughts. >> Uh, Commissioner DR. Yeah, I'll piggy back off of what Commissioner Williams is saying. These, you know, it does keep coming up. Um, and you know, public comment is concerned that this will just, you know, the next person will want to build another garage and another garage. Um, I do think it's pretty interesting that we we keep approving uh RV warehouse storage because people need storage, but I guess you can build a garage, too, if it if you if it works for your property and everybody's okay with it. So, um it just seems like it's a it's a little slippery slope um that that we're that we, you know, go down here. And again, I think uh in some neighborhoods where there are CCNRs that are more clear, um that that helps us uh sort of define what it is that we should be looking at a little more clearly. And in this case, it probably, you know, that that doesn't exist. So um I I don't know that I can make all the findings, but um just sort of where my head is at right now. Any other thoughts or I I can chime in at this time. Uh so, Commissioner Jockman, I guess I'll say this. Commissioner Williams, you had the this brief question about a an an added condition. In my head, if if we were to proceed with a modified condition here, I would um like to see perhaps so my my biggest finding that I focus on when we look at these is has fire blessed this because when we're deviating from setbacks, uh public safety is the biggest biggest issue that I would consider to be within our findings and what comes to the forefront for me when we're talking about this. We're likely talking about the alternate which is having a vehicle parked on the street or something that's visible. It's going to not be visible with this approval and putting it in a garage. So to the finding about neighborhood character that isn't quite something that I cannot find as a result of an you know a building of this garage because I can also see aesthetic benefit to building the garage. Uh, I do understand the concern. We've heard it numerous times with the side setback about um the survey. And so I can see if we start conditioning these with a survey, it's probably going to be in the order of $5,000 for a survey to be per to be performed. um which is not I I I I understand the concern about building onto an adjacent property or at least that's what I interpret it to be, but it's not necessarily what is something that I want to burden with individual homeowners if they just want to park their RV in a garage or something of that sort. So that's where I struggle with the idea to put a survey on as a condition. I can certainly see and I would call this a punchwalk as an engineer that there's value to ensuring perhaps that fire is aligned with what is ultimately built and that they're a part of that and they're continuing to bless that as a structure is built adjacent to a property because the public health health component is of utmost concern to me with this type of an application. Commission uh Mr. would you like to say something? >> Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Um, if it is the inclination of the the commission to add a condition related to this to the survey, I would suggest um that it not be a full site survey, but rather a setback verification letter prepared by a licensed engineers or land surveyor to just verify that one particular setback. We wouldn't see a need to survey the entire parcel to and incur the cost associated with that. >> Thank you for that information. Commissioner uh this is Mr. Belto. Uh I'm I'm comfortable going either way. Um I I think I would be more inclined to put a condition requiring there be a survey in a limited capacity like um like Mike just described if the neighbors were not agreeable. But given that the neighbors don't appear to be opposing this, I I'm less inclined to think it's necessary. But again, I can go either way if the commission feels comfortable. >> Commissioner Williams. >> Yeah. Briefly adding on to that, um I think when I had to have a survey, land survey done for some flooding map uh amendment, it was in the closer to $500 range. Um so I mean in that aspect, I would be very curious. You're right. I wouldn't want to burden somebody with a $1,000 situation. Um, if there maybe what I'm talking about is more of what Mike was referencing. It's just a a a boundary used some pretty technical terms because you're that guy. But >> yeah. So, so a setback verification with letter would just be to verify the setback of the garage. It wouldn't be a whole site survey, a whole boundary survey just to confirm that that setback is meeting the the 2 and 1/2 ft. Lastly, for me, uh I would just want there to be some sort of consensus and then I I guess we can't really do that because every project is different, but I would hate to require certain projects at 50% um deviation adding this condition and then not so it almost like we would have to there would have to be some sort of guideline instead of hodge podgeing which projects are required to have this boundary line survey done which it seems difficult. So I understand that aspect of it too, but um and I definitely appreciate the public safety aspect of it. There is a inherent risk with vehicles and streets um which I get. So >> Commissioner Jockman, if I may go back to to staff, if we were to uh so Mr. Foster, if we were a if we were to entertain a condition that involved uh the support of the fire department as a part of the final punch walk or however it may be referred to identifying conformance with the what is constructed, how would that best be proposed as a modified condition? >> So, okay. So, I think there's two things going on. what I'm hearing you talk about a setback but also the fire department's review so that that if the setback issue is more like what you're talking about Mike with just kind of a a verification of where the property line is right um that's one potential condition and I wouldn't say a modified condition I would say a new condition right we don't have another condition that that would kind of tack on to or something >> and I guess before you finish if I may clarify that's not where my concern is but I do hear that you're hearing multiple concerns from the body So hearing what comm I I'm with Commissioner Velto on that point. We've got a letter of support from the adjacent property owner. So I personally don't view that as being necessary for the findings to be made. Um I my concern is with the fire department and public safety. >> Okay. And that's exactly why I wanted to parse that because to me it felt like two different things what we're talking about. Um, regarding the fire department's review, not only did they submit uh comments that said this project has no issues other than when they come in for a building permit, they have to comply with the international fire code. Keep in mind that when the building permit is submitted that the fire department will also review it at that point in time. So, the fire department is going to review this regardless. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you for that clarification. >> It would be inappropriate to condition that. >> Ah, thank you. Already part of the process. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Nothing further from me. Seeing as though we have a body with only five members tonight, I think it is uh important that we all state in deliberations where we are. As uh typical, I believe this is a body that would require four votes on this. So that requires that the applicant would have four of the five votes in order for a motion to be passed. Unfortunately, we do not have seven tonight. So, I think it's important that we state where we are before any motion is made. Hearing that there are varying opinions from the commission. >> Uh, Commissioner Goniantini, I'm happy to support this project. I think based on the context of the neighborhood, the context of the building envelope of the particular lot, I think this is a great addition to the neighborhood. I think it's important for um parking. We hear about parking constantly in these older neighborhoods and it would solve a significant problem for this particular neighborhood. So, I'm in support of this project. >> Uh, Commissioner Williams, um, I'm comfortable making all the findings. I think what I realized tonight was that um uh Chair Jockman's comments about the importance of the adjoining neighbors um kind of supersedes my overall caution in nextdoor neighbor privacy. And so I guess when we see this again, I'll be taking that into conver, you know, into consideration about where the where the next door where the affected property owners probably sit. And I think for me that's maybe one of those times where it would be easier for me to really get behind additional condition for setbacks etc. Um so with that being said and with that in mind for the future I'm I'm comfortable approving the project. >> Uh Commissioner Delvr um yeah I can't I mean I'm not happy that I can make all the findings. I can I can make the findings. I I think that uh it's an interesting um situation and I think we're going to see more and more of these come up because we're going to keep approving them. So, um you know, maybe it is something we need to think about longer term. You know, do we need or are there other things we need to put in place? um you know because just because this property owner next to them is okay with it maybe I mean I guess if they ever need to sell their house they'll have to deal with that then at that point but um so there you have it. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I'll state my thoughts are along the line of Commissioner Veltos with regard to how to uh look at the setback as it pertains to the adjacent property. So, hearing that there is the support there, I don't think it's necessary at this time to identify another condition in that regard. I think it is something worth exploring in the future because you know if if that is something that could happen then perhaps there's some value to placing that added condition on other applications but that's not what I need for this one. Um as as it pertains to the public health and safety finding hearing that fire is going to be a part of the process as you move forward through the building permit that makes me comfortable not adding any conditions to make all the findings that are before us tonight. So, I'm comfortable with this as it is presented. >> Uh, Commissioner Melto, I'll be short. I could be comfortable either way, without the condition or with the condition. I could make the findings. And with that, I hope somebody else makes a motion. >> Commissioner Confanti, I'll make the motion. >> Please proceed. In the matter of case LDC26-000059 based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the major deviations subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings. >> Commissioner Williams, I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. 5-0. That concludes item C1. We will now move on to item C2. Item C2, this is a staff report for possible action and recommendation to city council. I will note with that that this as a zoning map amendment is a recommendation to city council. So this is not a uh final decision. This will advance to city council regardless. This body will make recommendations for approval or denial of that zoning map amendment. Uh this is case number LDC26-00006 Fairfield Farmhouses zoning map amendment. And before we begin with a staff presentation, Mr. Please confirm this because this is a recommendation. There is no appeal at this stage in the process. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Thank you very much. We will now proceed with a presentation from Miss Batti I believe. Miss Picotti, please proceed. >> Hello. Good evening, chair, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Leah Bucatti and I work for City of Reno Development Services. This evening, I am presenting the application for Fairfield Farmhouses zoning map amendment. As you stated tonight, this is a recommendation. This will move forward to city council uh within a month or so. What we're looking at tonight is a 1.08 acre site. Uh this is located north of Plum Lane between Sharon and Marsh, just kind of northwest of Jesse Beck Elementary School. The zoning map amendment before you tonight is from single family residential three units per acre to single family residential five units per acre. Key issues that staff analyzed in this request were compatibility with surrounding zoning and uses and conformance with the master plan land use designations. On the board before you is the zoning map. We got a lot of orange yellowish colors there. But that slightly darker orang-ish color is the single family three units per acre. And everything in the lighter color there is that SF5. So here you can see on the left hand side what it currently looks like and on the right hand side what is proposed. You will note that that SF5 is adjacent to the north. Um, I'm going to talk about the conformance with the master plan first because everything that you see on your screen that's in yellow is single family neighborhood. And this is the master plan land use designation for most of our single family neighborhoods in Reno. This single family neighborhood land use designation does allow for a variety of single family densities including that SF3 all the way up to SF8. Under that master plan um I have some noted policies and that this fulfills but generally what we're looking at here is that Plum is an arterial. It's a neighborhood corridor and this is an infill site. This is a site that has been sitting vacant for about 10 years. Uh there have been code enforcement issues on it related to weeds and debris and different things like that. Uh all of the infrastructure is in place for this for this site to be developed. So in terms of conformance with the master plan, it meets the policies for growth tiers, housing options, infill and redevelopment. And then when you look at that growth and reinvestment framework that talks a lot about the infill and using you and utilizing existing infrastructure and then neighborhood corridor has to do a lot with um building in places that allow for multimodal transportation and easy access to other centers which we all know this area of Plum does that. I'm going to go through the background here on this and I'm going to apologize ahead of time for some of um the slides here. They're a little bit blurry because these subdivision maps are very old. But I think for the context of how we got to where we are today, I want to go back about 120 years. So, what you're looking at on the screen there is Fairfield Heights. This is the subdivision map from 1905. So, we're looking at 120 years ago. Uh down the middle of that is Harris Avenue which later became Marsh and at the northern portion of that is Monroe and the southern portion is Plum. So in 1905 this whole area this 80 acres was subdivided into 5 acre parcels. We have those five acre parcels here. The parcel with the green X is what we're looking at today. Then in 1947, the Redelius subdivision came in. And I put this in here because this is just that northern portion of Fairfield Avenue, just slightly north of where this is. So you can see on the X where I kind of pointed that this is where it's at. But you can see there where Fairfield became um a public street is. So we're looking back at 1947 is the first time that that portion of Fairfield became a public street. Then in 1958, the terminus of Fairfield Avenue was developed on the eastern side with the flag subdivision. And here you can see those parcels. And the X is the parcel that parcels that we're talking about today, which is directly adjacent to this. In 1958, when this subdivision was created, Fairfield was dedicated as a public access easement at that time. And um I'll get a little bit more into access and why that's important in a bit. So in 2019, the applicant um applied for a parcel map to split the existing parcel into three parcels, which does conform with the existing SF3 designation that's on there today. So moving forward, the applicant has submitted a parcel map concurrent with this zoning map application. Now, this parcel map can't be approved unless this zoning map application is approved. So, we're a couple months away, but in good faith, they wanted to show what they're planning to do. So, this is the parcel map that's currently in for review. It does show for four lots. These lots uh range from about just over a quarter of an acre to about a third of an acre. And the applicant is um proposing a deed restriction that would limit this to four parcels. So, right now, three are allowed. Under SF5, five could be allowed. They're only proposing four. So, they're saying they're going to deed restrict it to the four in perpetuity. However, I do have to point out that that is not something that would be enforced by the city. The SF5 zoning is what we would look at. Okay. Talking about compatibility with surrounding. Um, so the SF3 designation requires 15,000 foot minimumsiz parcels. SF5 requires 9,000 square foot. That's a pretty big difference between those two numbers. But we don't have an SF4. There's nothing in there that is 10 or 11 or 12,000 square foot parcels. And we look when we look at this whole area between Sharon and and and Marsh and um I just went blank on what the road is that's above it, but we are looking at the majority of these parcels being right about at a quarter acre just under a quarter acre. So I highlighted here where that proposed zoning map is right there with the three existing parcels. There are only four parcels in this whole map that actually conform to that SF3. All of the rest of these parcels conform to SF5. They are either right about the same size as what the applicant's proposing or a little bit smaller. Um so in terms of compatibility with the surrounding, we're looking at lot size, we're looking at density, and we're looking at character of the neighborhood. So these lot sizes would be consistent with what's existing in the neighborhood. The density is consistent with what's in the neighborhood and the character of being single family, which is what they're planning on doing, is also consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. Regarding development standards, um the the only major differences here are the lot size, which we just talked about, and those setbacks um which are fairly substantial between SF3 and SF5. But again, the majority of this area was developed with those um SF5 essentially whatever it was back in the day with those standards. So in terms of compatibility with the setbacks, the SF5's doning designation would match the majority of what's there today. This application did go before the neighborhood advisory board and we have received a fair amount of public comment in opposition to this project. And I want to talk a little bit about the concerns and and what what what we looked at when we looked at these concerns. So one of the major concerns was the neighborhood compatibility and increased density. SF5 zoning is consistent with the surrounding lots. Again, same lot size, same density, same uses. Um, so in terms of compatibility and increased density, it's the same access from Fairfield. I know that there's been a lot of concern about access of more cars coming down Fairfield and a lot of people at the NAB talked about access from Plum Lane. Why can't they access from Plum Lane? That property has historically been accessed from Plum Lane. However, the existing use was demoed 10 years ago and it's been sitting vacant for 10 years. So, any new development is going to have to meet our current standards and those current standards, it can't meet it for the spacing requirements between intersections and signalized intersections. So, access from plum is not possible. There was some conversations about this was going to put a road in that was going to go from the culde-sac to Plum and people would use it as a cutthrough. That's that's not correct. There would be no access off of Plum except emergency access. Um and Derek can talk a little bit more about that when we get to it, but no, there would be no access off of Plum. The access to this would be Fairfield Avenue. I have heard that Fairfield Avenue is a private street. That is not correct. Fairfield Avenue was dedicated to the city in 1958. It is a 60-foot public rightway with a culde-sac that meet all of our standards as of today. The majority of Fairfield Avenue was dedicated as a public rideway in 1958 with the um flag subdivision. However, there were four parcels on the east side, including the subject site that didn't dedicate and have just maintained that access. So that access right now is a non-exclusive easement and right ofway for roadway purposes. So that for all purposes is a public access roadway and the applicant being that he owns a good portion of that culde-sac um absolutely has rights to access his property from Fairfield Avenue. Regarding traffic safety and impacts, I know there were requests for traffic impact study. We're talking about going from three parcels to four parcels. We're talking about an average of probably eight to 10 trips per day. Uh to ask for a traffic impact study for uh 8 to 10 projects is is just it just wouldn't make sense. Um our thresholds for a traffic impact studies are basically that they need to generate 200 or more peak hour trips. This is a 1% of that. So that's why we haven't required that. The zoning map amendments this body has seen multiple times. They're pretty straightforward. It conforms with state law in that NRS section that's cited there and it conforms with the master plan. This application does both of those things. Um so staff is able to make all of the findings and is recommending approval of this request. The recommended motion is on the board. I am available for questions and the applicant also has a presentation. Thank you. >> Uh good evening, Derek Wilson on behalf of uh the property owner. Um before I forget, one quick clarification. Um well, first of all, that was among the finest bit of research I've ever seen in front of the planning commission. But um the the reference to a parcel split in 2019, that was a previous owner. Uh this is a new owner. They had no part of that. Um, so they're not coming back asking for another parcel. Uh, so it's going to be difficult to not repeat uh because that was such a thorough presentation. Um, but yeah, the request is uh to change from SF3 zone uh to SF5 uh to allow uh for one additional unit on one additional parcel. That's a view of the site now looking north from Plum Lane. Um that's looking south from uh the Fairfield um culde-sac. Uh so that's roughly where our access would come from. That is uh the current zoning and that's our proposed zoning. Um so you can see we're adjacent to an existing SF5 zone. Uh there's SF5 in the surrounding area. Uh and I think equally important uh as was already pointed out uh the SF the four parcels we're requesting are going to match uh most of the surrounding parcels and in fact slightly exceed most of them in size. Um no change to the master plan. So uh Le and I both did the same analysis from a different direction without consulting each other. But uh this was my exhibit of the surrounding parcel sizes. Uh so in red there it shows our proposed uh just over a quarter acre for each parcel. Uh and then I highlighted in orange all the parcels that are that are uh less than or equal to our proposed size. So it's the majority of the neighborhood. Uh we're going to match uh most of the properties that are there now. Uh and and frankly it's a nice neighborhood. I think that's an appropriate parcel size. I think it works well there. Uh that's a that's an example of the architecture. Uh the the architecture is still under development. Uh these are not that's not a final design. Uh but uh they they want to be compatible with uh the existing suburban neighborhood. Uh they want a quality project. Uh so uh we're we're looking at a a quality uh detailed um uh look uh with a variety of materials and a and an appealing uh sort of contemporary uh traditional look. Um the note I made here says addresses regional housing need. Well, almost any document you read from the planning department is going to site a need for additional housing. So we're attempting to do that. Uh city policy encourages infill. Uh we're attempting to do that as well. Uh no expansion to city services needed. We're we're surrounded by uh city services, utilities, uh city streets. Uh so it's it's an easy fit. Um this is kind of a summary of our project. This is a this is a a rough uh site plan view of what we're proposing. Uh so that section in gray is is the driveway serving the four units uh from the culde-sac. uh at the southern end of that it it intersects Plum Lane with an emergency access gate. Uh so uh uh we we had to agree reluctantly with the city that that a driveway onto Plum Lane from there just doesn't meet current traffic design standards. It's it's it's not even close. Uh so it it makes far more sense from from uh a safety and a neighborhood functioning uh position to to run our driveway up to the the current culde-sac. Um and in fact there's already an access easement there in place that was recorded uh with the current parcels. Um one thing I could mention, people at the NAB uh were concerned about um uh people backing out of the driveways into the culde-sac. Uh that certainly happens on neighboring properties uh but it won't happen on this property. People will back out of their garages uh onto that gray driveway area and then move forward into the culde-sac from there. So I I think we have a completely safe uh traffic route onto Fairfield. Uh so public outreach um the the client is here tonight, the owner is here tonight. Uh Walker Smith, I'm going to have him come up and introduce himself in a minute. uh he I'm going to say he's the most proactive client I've ever worked with in terms of meeting the neighborhood. Uh before he met me uh before I got involved in the project, he went around to the neighborhood and knocked on doors and and introduced himself and the project. So uh I you know that doesn't that doesn't mean you won't have any issues. There's always plenty to discuss. Uh but I I think it's a great way to start a project and and he's kept that up ever since. So we've he's been communicating with neighbors. I've been communicating with neighbors. Um there's a appointed neighborhood representative, not appointed by us, appointed by the neighborhood. Uh we've been in contact with him. Uh and in fact, we went to a meeting with the city uh with planning and engineering uh to discuss the driveway issue. Uh and that's where we we got the word that that a driveway on the plum is just not possible. So, uh I don't expect that that made everyone in the neighborhood happy, but I I feel like we we pushed that issue as far as we could. Uh so that's all I have. Uh, I'd like to hand it over uh to Walker for a second. Let him introduce himself. Uh, and we're certainly available to answer any questions. >> Uh, Walker Smith for the record. Thank you, Derek and Leah, for the presentation and explaining what we're trying to achieve here in requesting this zone change from SF3 to SF5. Um, as Derek mentioned, I was at the neighborhood advisory board meeting as well. And, um, uh, I've been a local here for a while. I've been building single family homes for the past 7 to8 years and been a part of projects from Carson to Reno and uh back in uh November of last year I partnered with my brother Coleman Smith who's in the audience as well to purchase this property with the intent of building some single family homes. Um our goal and intent from the beginning has been to add value to this area and respect the character and nature that's already there. Um, as as Derek mentioned, um, before I even purchased the property, I knocked on the doors of all the neighboring properties and, uh, spoke with with all the neighbors I could with explaining what we're trying to do here and to listen to concerns that they had and answer questions and those I wasn't able to speak with, I left a flyer with my contact information and um, offered to meet with neighbors who who wanted to after that and some of which who took me up on that. And we've been in contact with Adam again as as Derek mentioned who's been appointed the, you know, main contact for the neighbors to go over concerns and explore options for those concerns and answer questions. And um I just again wanted to introduce myself and say thank you for your time and I'm here for any uh questions or concerns you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you. We uh that that concludes the applicant presentation. Is that correct? So we will now move to disclosures in person. Commissioner Gonettini. >> Commissioner Gonfiantini spoke with the um applicant representative familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Jockman read and reviewed materials. That's it. >> Commissioner Williams same. >> Commissioner Delr same. >> Commissioner Belto same. >> We will now move to public comment on this item. Madame clerk. >> Yes we have a few. We'll start in person. Is it is it Lewis? >> Louis. >> Louie, come on up. You'll have three minutes. Just state your name for the record. Then we'll have Rob Stone. >> Lie Praashe. I'm at 1810 Fairfield. I am in the culde-sac. So when I back up my truck, I would be backing up in the driveway of this project and and that's true for the other properties, too. Uh I actually oppose the resoning, but because of unresolved issues. It's actually not true. We were told that plum is not is off the books for uh exit. It could be actually modified with a left turn median. And since you guys had a planning project for repaving Marsh and Sharon Way, we were wondering if that could be done all at the same time. So the city told us that that is actually a distinct possibility. The issue of opposition has not to do with the house themselves. It has to do with this access in the culde-sac. We do not want a driveway there. period. And the uh the problem is that all the cars will be broadsided when we back up by the people coming out of the driveway there. And that's an extra 8 to 12 cars if there's two cars per houses. You can do the math and most people in that area have three cars and children in the future and all that. So that's an issue where this issue of the access is really a sore point with the neighborhood is actually the source point. it's not actually the the the houses, but if that is not it resol issue is not resolved, we don't like having more houses. So the other issue is that when it's going to be holidays, Super Bowl, whatever event, people are going to show up these houses to eat meals, be with their family and all that, people from out of town. Where are these cars going to park? And the only place they're going to be able to park is in our culde-sac that's already full of people. kids, contractors park there, garbage truck turns there and we have our own parties where we park in the culde-sac. So where will these extra cars from people visiting be parked in the culdesac which is cars on the street and we mentioned from the previous case that is a problem. So this is why we have a a really hard time with this. There's another issue. You notice there's cottonwoods on the photo. There was a pond there and we were told that there used to be a ditch that brought water. Cottonwoods require ground water. So it means that there's water underneath that burm there. You saw the cottonwoods on the photo. So this is an issue where we had flooding problems regularly on that street. Flash events, snow melts. There's only a little drain there. And I know that the Puit's house got flooded once, actually more, four times. I shoveled water with a snow shovel in the summer for my neighbor. So there's this issue of drainage and we don't want more flooding in that thing due to some driveway with a slope bringing even more water. Something needs to be done about this and the source of the water under those cotwood trees uh needs to be investigated. So is there a possibility to actually put um coming back to the parking issue parking for guest on the property from plum is that possible? So, this is the reason why there's a lot of unresolved issues and we are opposed to it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Louis. Next up is Rob Stone, then Katie LSE, then Tasha Pascal. >> Hi, Rob Stone. Um, I just want to say I appreciate that you guys exist to help balance the growth, development, resoning with the maintaining the character of our city. And, um, I'm not opposed to growth. These guys seem like great gentlemen, honestly. Um, but when you when you kind of mess with a neighborhood like the Old Southwest, it is a part of our city's unique character. My wife and I walk our dogs there all the time. We we just can't think of another neighborhood quite like it. And so reszoning from SF3 to SF5, we think should should benefit more than just the developer. you know, it should in a neighborhood like that, it should either benefit the home homeowners or the city's unique character or um if not, there needs to be more um benefit for this, which I haven't heard yet. And so, I just wanted to go on record, I I support anything that makes my city uh better, any kind of growth. Um I don't see how this does or if it does. The SF3 took care of it. the move to SF5 does not uh give it any more improvement at the expense of the current homeowners and the city's unique character. I just feel like that's the case in this. And so, um, personally, we share I don't know if we can put back up any pictures from before the south. Um, there's a basketball hoop, uh, looking towards Plum. So, while they they do that, we we uh share a fence line with the project. Um and that fence line uh along there, which hopefully they can show. Okay. So, um to the left on that picture is my driveway. And if you can see between our driveway and the lot, there's about a five foot uh dirt wall, rock wall, and then a couple foot fence there. And when we pull out of that, it there's very little visibility. If you add a um entryway there with with 10 to 12 cars coming in and out throughout the day, um there's very little visibility and it almost pits our driveway against I mean it sends the two backout points or driveout points towards each other and it works in the other cold sacks. There's visibility. So when people are pulling out, you can see it. But with that huge wall, to me, it's sort of a safety issue, not just mine um backing out, but the kids, all the activity in that lot. And so I just take into consideration the impact on the the neighborhood for what who benefits from it. Um I'd also like to say the safety visibility is an issue. And the last thing I'd say is that this property has changed hands multiple times. So I appreciate that they're committed to four. That's great. But once it's SF5, it's SF5. So, who's to say the next people don't do something different with it? So, the neighbor doesn't feel super confident that that's a guarantee. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next is Katie Loose, then Tasha Pascal, and then we will move online. Hello, my name is Katie Loose. I'm the unelected proxy for Adam Puit who's in New York. Um I live on Fairfield Avenue as well and I'm here to respectfully oppose case LDC26 0060 based on the required findings for zoning map amendment. Understand uh to Rob's point that it will be developed. But first the record does not demonstrate a need for resoning. The staff report confirms the site can be developed under existing F F3 zoning and does not show that development is infeasible. Without that, this amendment appears to grant additional entitlement rather than address a constraint or an actual public need. Second, the proposal results in a clear increase in development intensity. Minimum lot size drops, front step setbacks are reduced from 30 feet to 10 ft. Lot widths are reduced and attached housing then becomes permissible, which is not allowed under SF3. These are material changes that affect site design, building placement, and overall neighborhood form. The proposed zoning introduced housing types, specifically attached to units that are not part of the existing development pattern, which undermines the claim of consistency in character. While the applicant has offered a deed and restriction limiting the number of homes, a deed restriction is not zoning. It's a private agreement that could be modified or challenged over time. The city would be granting higher density by relying on a separate document to actually limit it. And that's not a SOAP appropriate for that's not substitute for appropriate zoning. And third, this proposal has characteristics of spot zoning. It applies to a small isolated parcel and primarily benefits a single property owner without a demonstrated broader public benefit of planning necessity. Fourth, and I only have a few more. Fourth, the site functions as a transition edge between zoning patterns. What the exhibit B zoning map does not accurately represent is that maintaining SF3 at this location preserves a gradation between densities. Extending SF5 into this parcel effectively shifts that boundary and the analysis does not address the site's role as a transition's edge between zoning districts. Maintaining lower intensity at such edges is a common planning practice to buffer differing development patterns. Fifth, access constraints are significant. As Rob and Louie mentioned, the subject site is not similarly situated to surrounding parcels due to its constrained access from a single culde-sac. Compatibility should be evaluated not only by zoning but by functional conditions which differ significantly here. The report clearly states that access from Plum Lane is not permitted due to intersection spacing requirements leaving Fairfield Avenue's primary access point. Despite this, no detailed traffic circulation or PDA pedestrian safety analysis has been done. In summary, this resoning is not necessary. It functions as spot zoning and it disrupts the transition edge. It lacks sufficient analysis to support required findings and that's not how Reno typically does their their increased density. Recent uh cases show consistent pattern, large project, public benefit and detailed analysis. The conclusion of the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood is not fully supported by the record. The analysis relies on primarily average lot sizes but does not account for significant reductions in setbacks, narrow lot widths, and the introduction of attached housing. All of which affect department pattern and cap character. Approving this request asks you to accept in this intensity now and trust that impacts will be solved later. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next up is Tasha Pascal and then we will move online starting with Norah Constantino. >> Oh, sorry Tasha. Tasha does not wish to speak but is in opposition. So we will move online to Norah Constantino. Norah, just uh state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. My name is Nora Constantino and I live in the neighborhood where this um proposed zoning change is and I am opposed to it. I agree with the the it's a spot zoning and that's not what we need and all of you need to drive on Fairfield and drive through that culde-sac and see how small the easement is or the the ability to get into that lot. It is going to be extremely unsafe and as all communities are, we overturn, we grow, young young families move in. You're going to have young children in the street. It's just I think it's it there should it should stay the way it is for many reasons, but safety to me is the number one. >> Thank you, Nora. Uh, next up is Beth Dory. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. >> Um, the Fairfield farmhouse zoning amendment, um, it actually looks like a good project, but for the CCNRs, which appear to be still active, that's Woe County recorder number 216384. Um, active CCNRs without an HOA can still be enforced and CCNRs trump city codes and zoning. Uh, would the applicant be able to adhere to the setback conditions of the CCNRs with the reduced lot sizes? I assume when the owner purchased the property last December, he acknowledged or signed the CCNRs. Um, under item two of those CCNRs, it says the setback distance along with all streets shall be 20 ft. No dwelling, house or structure, uh, oh, appertunit uh, hearth though, whatever shall be constructed or maintained on any lot nearer than 10% of the frontal distance uh, from the sidelines of any lot delineated on said map. While the city does not want to be bothered with old CCNRs, Reno could be sued if there are approvals without considering these CCNRs. The house with no roof on Windy Hill exceeded the height limit per CCNRs. Wo County was brought into that lawsuit because they approved the plan. The plaintiffs won and that's why that house appears to have no roof. So, please consider these old CCNRs which from what I could read are still active. Thank you. >> Thank you, Beth. We have another in Zoom uh Laurel Seaitto. Go ahead and state your name for the record once you've unmuted. You'll have three minutes. Hi, my name is Laurel Seaitto and I reside at 1810 Fairfield and I uh did submit an email uh note but to oppose the resoning map amendment from SF SF3 to SS5 SF5. Um I do support infill development and development of houses on the vacant lot in question but I am concerned about the zoning change for the following reasons. The first is that uh as as others have said there the uh five houses on a lot on the lot would increase the traffic and parking on Fairfield Avenue creating an unsafe environment. There already is limited parking on the culde-sac and adding at least 8 to 10 more vehicles to the street with access from Fairfield will make the end of the street much more congested and unsafe. There are many children on the street that play in the street but they will no longer be able to do that if there is more traffic and parking. I think a resolution of the concern would be to allow access from plum plum lane for the development so that excess parking could occur on Plum Lane. And we would be interested in talking with the city and the owner or developer to explore this option if this is a possibility. And we uh do have concerns about drainage in the culde-sac because of past drainage issues. And so we hope that adding more paved area um is going to add to the drainage areas that we hope would be accounted for with the new development. And then as uh Louise stated there are we are concerned that there could be shallow groundwater or seepage to the lot because of the large cottonwoods that are present and so management of groundwater seepage may be necessary for the new development and to ensure it doesn't affect drainage or flooding in the neighborhood. Thank you for considering this comment. >> Thank you Laurel. Um with that I don't have any other request to speak forms in chambers and we do not have anyone else online with their hand raised. >> Thank you madam clerk. Do we have any other requests to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing no hands raised, we will now close public comment and move to questions from the commission. I think uh I'll start this one off, Commissioner Jockan. So, there were a number of comments that talked about traffic here. It sounds like there was even maybe some disagreement between staff and applicant at the time on some of this. So the my my opinion is is is really with staff here. You should not have another access point on plum and the access should come in from the culdeac which is perhaps not what everyone would like to hear for this item. I wasn't planning to talk about traffic on this item because it's basically a request for one additional home, but but I want to make it clear that I think it's better to have these cars come in and out on the culde-sac than on plum before we go into questions. So, uh, Commissioner Delvr, did you have a question as well? >> Sure. Um, so Commissioner DelviR, I guess one of the questions I have is we we don't see too many um like this where they're coming off of a a driveway, right? It's usually a street. And so this is where I'm just trying to I'm not saying it's right or wrong or I'm just trying to understand what what some other options could potentially be. like could they could we expand the the street itself so that again it's more contained and we don't have to worry about some of the driving. Are there some safety issues that could be put in place at the culdeac itself to ensure um you vis more visibility things like that? It's not um we we just don't generally see where people come off of uh a street onto a driveway for four homes. >> Thank you. Commission the record. So, you don't generally see this because unless a zoning map amendment is requested, this is allowed by right. So, we have several um that I can think of where we've done similar configurations with a driveway off a street that serves four homes. One of the major distinctions here is that under state law, you can do four parcels without creating a subdivision. And so when you see five parcels come in, that's when you're looking at a tenative map. That's when it's coming before you. And there are different standards. when you have five parcels, you have to do things like improve all of the streets and and anything else that's required infrastructure-wise. So, while this is a common development, it's not a common development that you guys see. And in terms of what could be done, we I I understand that we're looking at this and and that the applicant is saying, "Hey, this is what I'm going to build." But this is not an application for development. And if it were an application for development, we would have plans and it would show vision triangles and all of those other things that are going to be required when they do come forward for development. So while I understand that looking at that picture of the culdesac and that wall and considering that there's going to be issues pulling in and out of there, that will all be evaluated. that will be evaluated in the building permit process. And in terms of making improvements to the street, we we don't generally make improvements to existing streets when they meet the current standards. Um if something comes up during building where it's not meeting vision triangles or that there's some requirement from the fire department or anything like that, that would be addressed at the time of development. >> Okay. and and there and there might be again with like the fire department might want a different easement or or something to that effect. Um and then also Leo, can you clarify for me when construction does begin that would get into things like time on site and where building builders construction folks have to park things like that so they're not also um causing issues on that on that one road down there. >> Absolutely. But again, I want to I want to put out there that should the zoning map amendment be approved, those building permits are not going to come back before this body if it's only for them. >> Sure. >> Understood. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Uh Commissioner Jockman, so I'll ask a question to the followup that I had previously and then Commissioner Velta will go to you. So, I saw as a part of the materials that there's an easement that's both existing and will remain as a part of this application on the east side of the property. Is that correct? Just going directly from Plum up to the culde-sac. >> Uh I I believe you're talking about the proposed easement for the public access easement for the driveway that's going to go in if you're looking parcel map. Yes. >> Okay. So, and and I I thought I heard from the applicant that it was existing as well, not necessarily that it matters. My concern is that we will not create a cutth through into the culde-sac. Folks on the culde-sac obviously have expressed concern about traffic. I I I see an avenue where this could potentially be worse with that easement if you were to develop the parcel adjacent to Plum first. and and we have the comment about the properties being sold. So it's if it's not technically a subdivision, my first question is could they sell off that southern parcel separately? Yes. >> Right. So there's an easement that exists along all of the parcels. And so then that applicant or that property owner could make the case that they have a right to their property on plum. So, what I'm trying to ensure is that with this, you know, with an approval, there's no way that they can create a a cut through via that easement. I know you're showing us a a fire access gate at that place, which is what I support as well. I want to make sure there's no way they can cheat through that via a development of one of those parcels and then iteratively for the others. >> Not legally. I mean, I guess we could cut the fence. >> Sure. Uh would the applicant like to chime in on that? >> Yes, please. Uh that east side easement that you referenced is already in place, >> right? >> Uh so we would probably have trouble removing that if we tried to isolate that southern parcel. I think the city would tell us no. >> That Mr. Wilson is correct. So, if they came in for a parcel map to eliminate that, knowing that access on Plum Lane doesn't meet our standards, we would not allow removal of that access because it essentially is their only access to to reach that parcel for development. >> Okay. My my concern and and this is not a final comment. I just want to make sure it's clear that there's no way for a cut through to be created such that additional traffic could come there in the future, even through an iterative development process across the four parcels. >> That's correct. The only access to plump lane >> regardless of how is developed or configured is a secondary emergency gated access. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Valto. >> I actually uh I don't think I have any questions. I can hold off. My my comment I just have more comments for discussion whenever we move into that. >> I'll go Commissioner Williams for the record. uh who wants to talk about the concerns with draining and flood and just addressing those and thoughts about it. What you've seen already through the research >> our project is here. >> Okay. >> Good evening. For the record, Jason Gillis, Tech Engineering. >> Um yeah, there appears to be some some drainage issues there at the end of the culde-sac. They're historic. Um, I would hazard to guess that that uh railroad wall that got constructed at some point does a good job of uh blocking water and holding it in the area. There is a drain at the end of the culde-sac. That property does drain downhill to Plum Lane. Um, that driveway we're all talking about, the gradient on that goes to Plum Lane. So when that wall's gone, that driveway is in, that infrastructure is put in that direction, there'll be a place for that water to go, plum lane, as well as all the detention and uh storm water mitigation devices that the building department, the community development department uh from Reno will force the developer to put in place. So yes, there's a problem. Now I see that the path forward to relieving it is actually putting that driveway through lowering that grade and letting the water get out of there. >> Okay. So I didn't I guess I didn't realize that that that wall is existing. So we're saying that the railroad whatever wall that is is >> where for the water to go right now it hit it hits the end of the culde-sac clogs up the drain system there starts to back up. I'm sure it ends up in people's driveways, in their attics, their front yards, that sort of thing. Um, that would be water that's generated obviously upstream somewhere in that older development, older uh subdivision, draining on the surface, curbs, gutters, not being captured by the storm drain system. >> Okay, that's Commissioner Williams, if I could mention, keep in mind that we're not considering a specific development project tonight, just the zoning. Um, our code does require that no matter what they build there, they cannot increase the drainage that's coming off those parcels now. So, there can be no net increase in flows, off-site flows onto adjoining properties. They'll be required to detain that. That would be reviewed with individual building permits for the new homes. >> Okay. Thanks, Mike. >> Thank you. >> Um, I just wanted to touch on that deed the idea of this deed restriction. Well, I was I was going to ask that somebody go on the record today since it's not really something that we can enforce to confirm that you guys are >> going to say that there's a deed restriction but >> we're willing to do that and and record it. >> But from what I learned from Miss Picotti and her excellent >> probably the best I've ever seen just by the way. So this the the city >> we we wouldn't that's technically not even necessary because if you go to five we're going to see a tenative map >> and anyways correct. >> Yes. Yes. U another way to look at it is uh the gentlemen here that are doing all this work uh here in front of you tonight they're unlikely to do all that for no reason. Uh so we we we're committed to four parcels. Yeah. But we are as a legal uh enforcement uh that we'd be bound to we're willing to do that deed restriction. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I got. >> Commissioner Gonini. My questions were addressed with the drainage comments. Thank you. >> Any other further questions from the commission? >> I got one more for Miss Picotti. Commissioner Williams for the record. this ju just from my you know I'm been here for six or eight months now this lot looks impossible. Um I what I see I'm not like a huge fan of. I think it's going to stand out. It's going to be different. We talk about neighborhood character um etc etc. Um I think what I've learned through your presentation and through the research and discussion is that the the options for this are almost slim to none. Am I am I off on this? because I I want to I understand the concern. I understand if if I was the neighbor. I understand the new development. Like all that I'm sensitive to. I also I also am a big fan of property rights. And and when I look at this now, what I'm learning, I'm like, what would they do with this piece of property that the driveway is going to be there regardless? The access point is going to be there regardless. The traffic in and out of the subdivision is going to be there regardless. Um and so I'm sensitive that also. like we do have property rights in this country and people get to build within reason and approval things they want. Um I don't see there's very many options for this because of the way it was designed or left or abandoned or whatever the case. Am I off on that? >> No, you're correct. Leah Picotti, for the record, I mean we see this with a lot of infill sites. I mean they're infill sites for a reason. Um they haven't been developed because they are difficult. Okay. Um, so when we do have somebody step up who wants to develop them, generally staff wants to be supportive of that, but you know, as you saw in the presentation, we want to make sure that we have all of the information. And so that's, you know, that's what that's what we do as staff is to go in and make sure that when we do bring this forward to the planning commission and to the city council that we have all of those questions answered ahead of time. But unfortunately with a zoning map amendment, we don't have development yet. So, um when that does come forward, um we all of those things will be evaluated. We have we have 650 pages of title 18 standards, you know, everything from building orientation and and heights and compatibility standards and all of that stuff is written into code. Um, should they never file this deed restriction, it becomes SF5 and they want to do five lots, you're going to see this again with a tenative map. >> Great. Okay, thanks so much for that, Leo. I know I was out on a whim on that. Uh, one more for the applicant if you wouldn't mind. Is the traditional style of housing the most consistent um in the building world that with the current neighborhood? Is that what you described it as? Right. traditional. >> Um I'm I'm a little stuck on this because uh we don't have the final plans yet. >> Okay. >> Uh but uh they are certainly attempting to make it compatible with the neighborhood. Um my personal feeling is that almost any neighborhood benefits from some variety of quality designs. Uh so I I I I live in Somerset. I hope I don't get in trouble here. I do not love that every street looks the same. Yeah. friends that come visit me get lost on the identical streets. Uh so I pref personally prefer a little bit of variety. Uh but uh yeah, quality designs uh traditional materials, wood facings, uh traditional looking windows. Yeah, that's that's the look they're going to go for certainly. Okay. >> Will it will it copycat what's there now? I can't promise that. >> Yeah, I agree with you with design and and frequent things. I mean, it's just I was more concerned of like there's a difference between traditional and Spanish style that that I'm not a fan of going from that version to something else. So, I want to make sure that your idea of traditional, even though we're not seeing it, is is in that spectrum, not radically different. >> I' I'd say traditional old southwest. >> Great. Thank you. >> Do we have any other questions from the commission? Seeing no, we will now move to deliberation. >> I'm happy to get us started. >> Please proceed. >> This is a in my mind a very narrow issue uh that centers around compatibility between uh the the parcel that we're looking at uh and whether it should be SF5 versus SF3. Um the map that I look at to make a determination that this is compatible um is the C2 or the C2 render the C2 maps which show that the area just abuing um this area is SF5 and with that I feel comfortable making the finding that uh a regional I'm sorry a amendment to the map to make this SF5 uh is adequate and I can make all the findings just based off of that I I think that there's been a lot of discussion about um you know flood drains, what the project could look like. I'm very concerned that those discussions might get ahead of what we're supposed to be looking at. Um as was explained by Leah is that if if this project were to go forward, they'd have to comply with all of our code, which would take into account any type of floodgates. And I wouldn't actually explain that. Uh, and then there's also other checks on there being more than four units in in that that would require them to come back to us. So, I feel comfortable making the findings because I I do think just generally this is compatible and our master plan tells us we should encourage infill uh and this is an infill project and something that I think our master plan directs us to do. So, with that, I feel really comfortable with uh making the findings. >> Uh, Commissioner Jockman. So, I'll second that. I I wrote that down as infill and housing as planning commissioners, we are guided by documents like what Commissioner Velto just said. So, we've got our master plan and it's telling us that we should support projects like this one in these parts of town and that can be challenging at times for folks who are near that development parcel. Um, as this is going to city council, I'll state it again in our deliberations. I strongly support, which again is tough for some to hear, but I strongly support the access being provided solely via the culdesac, not via plum. That would be the easy button in this case, but it would create a new access point, which creates new turning movements in a higher speed environment than what would be on the culdesac. So for the scope of a project that is four homes, they should go to a culde-sac. And so I I just want to state that on the record as this advances to city council. Finally, SF5 zoning. You've got uh you know a bit of a hodge podge here. I believe it was uh Mr. Province. You said that you know you're across the street. That parcel is 2 acres which is in line with SF5 zoning. So the zoning that we're approving is consistent with parcels of that size and that's what our purview is. So I can make those findings. I can make all the findings and I I just want to state on the record that I would like to see city council keep the access to the culde-sac as this advances. >> Uh Commissioner Delvr um yeah I can I can make the findings. I think that the the reasons it for me one is that it's already S uh S SF3 and and while I understand that SF5 and having four units on that property will increase the traffic that could be there but again by right they could put three there already. Um and um and and so that that's part of it. The the other part of it is um to to Leah's point that when it becomes uh time to actually build there's there's a lot of things that they're going to have to work through and and get approved. Um and so uh for me again it's it's compatible um and and I can make the rest of the findings as well. Commissioner Gfantini, I'm happy to support this project based on infill and compatibility. >> If there are no further deliberations, the commission will entertain a motion at this time. >> Happy to make a motion. >> Please proceed. In the matter of case number LDC26-000060, based upon compliance the applicable findings, I move to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance. >> Commissioner WR I second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, that recommendation for approval passes 50. That concludes this item C2. We will now move on to item C3. This is a staff report for possible action. Again, a recommendation to city council. Case number LDC26-000043, master plan conformance amendments. For this item, we will receive a presentation from staff. >> All right. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. For the record, Lauren Knox, senior planner. I'm going to walk you through a master plan amendment aimed at ensuring conformance with the regional plan as well as state law. So, first I kind of want to set the expectations and framework for this item. So, what I'm proposing tonight, as indicated in your staff report, are targeted amendments to the master plan to address conformance issues. This is not a full-scale overhaul or fundamental change to the master plan. Though I do recognize in the future a full-scale review is is definitely warranted, but this is just a targeted portion. For some general background, the reimagine Reno master plan was adopted in 2017 and at that time was a substantial overhaul to the previous master plan. Recently, there were some changes at the regional plan level and with state law that require us to amend our master plan to um align with that new policy direction. With regards to the regional plan related items, the regional plan was updated recently. Per state law, all jurisdiction master plans have to be submitted for a review of conformance with the regional plan. And through that process, there is what's called a list of scheduled additions. So items in our master plan that need to be addressed to be in conformance with the regional plan. So this item is to address those items. And then furthermore, in the 2025 legislative session, there were two new pieces of legislation that impact our master plan, which is AB96 related to heat mitigation and AB540, which is related to attainable housing. Again, the proposed amendments are targeted to those items. Before I walk through these items, I just want to note that TMRPA, so that's regional planning staff, has reviewed the proposed changes and believe that they will be found in conformance with the regional plan. That's a separate process after we kind of go through our own internal process here. So, first on that list of scheduled additions, we will address the natural resource consideration areas. The regional plan essentially includes a a data portal really of some mapped natural resources that are considered of importance to the region. The proposed changes to the master plan reference this resource which will really be a resource for us to analyze during those development review processes. So, it's just another resource or tool for us. In regards to critical source water protection, the regional plan adopted verbiage to reference a specific resource which is the integrated source water and 319H wershed protection plan for public water systems and the Truckucky Meadow and the Truckucky River in the Truckucky Meadows. So the master plan already contains a policy related to source water protection and the proposed red lines include referencing this very specific resource and this really helps us all in the region to be kind of coordinated with what information and what data we're using in those respects. There are a number of policies related to trails in the master plan. Many of which aim at providing improving or enhancing connectivity in the region. proposed red lines were included to two kind of overarching trail policies that directly that the red line directly references this Truckucky Meadows regional trails plan and that it should be consulted during the development review process to better promote um that can construction of trail and trail heads throughout the region. Lastly for regional plan related items is the city's sphere of influence. So for reference, the sphere of influence is the anticipated 20-year growth or area. During the regional plan update process, council provided staff with direction to remove certain public lands from our sphere of influence as we do not anticipate growing into those areas in that 20-year time frame. So since the SOI is actually a product of the regional plan, changes were included in the adopted regional plan and now we need to mimic those changes into our master plan. So maps throughout the plan were really um amended to reflect that change in our SOI. So moving on to state law changes, we're going to begin with AB96 again that's related to heat mitigation. So heat's a very hot topic right now and that pun was absolutely intended. Um extreme heat is one of the most deadly natural hazards and Nevada has always been a place impacted by heat. Uh recently you may know Reno has been viewed as a fast warming area and there's also been some targeted work in our area to better understand what this means for us. Things like the Reno Sparks heat campaign for example. New state law requires that the master plan address the four items listed on the slide overhead. So that's access to public cooling spaces, access to public drinking water, cool building practices, and shade over paved surfaces. I'm thankful there's actually a lot of foresight in this space during the creation of the reimagine Reno master plan because by the letter of the law the city's master plan already meets most of these new requirements. The master plan um contains policies related to cooling spaces, cool building practices and shade over paved surfaces and even discusses that that preference for native tree and drought tolerant species. However, I recognize there's still there's still a gap to fill in the space. There's more we can do in this arena. As such, proposed amendments were made to existing policies to more clearly reference the encouragement of shade structures and also encourage building waste heat recovery. A new policy is also introduced to more specifically address access to cooling spaces and access to public drinking water along with an associated implementation measure to create a resource really for community members that provides information on those specific resources. And really this is kind of a joint a joint policy that the other jurisdictions city of Reno and city of sparks or city sparks city of Reno and Wo County have all worked on together to try and introduce this into our plans and do that work together. We all recognize that this type of resource is really bigger than each of our jurisdictions. This needs to be a bigger community effort to have one place that people can go and learn where there is a cooling space or where there is public drinking water. We also recognize this can't really just be a stagnant map in the master plan. This needs to be something that's updated frequently that people can access when we have these extreme heat events. So again, this is really a coordinated effort in analyzing kind of those gaps and needs. Additionally, there's a new narrative proposed related to heat mitigation, which describes kind of the overarching concepts of heat mitigation and provides a guide to key policies that are already within the master plan that impact each of those interactions. So really, this kind of aims at contextualizing what we already have through the lens of heat management and heat mitigation. It's intended to be both a resource and an educational piece and also aims to amplify the conversation which is really kind of the intent of state law change as well. Um it's a incredibly nuanced conversation. The topics in here range from everything from site design, specific site design, all the way up to reduction in greenhouse gases which also impacts our heat in our area. So again, very overarching, but it's really kind of a critical and key sustainability focus of the master plan. and it's kind of bringing those pieces together and contextualizing it within this heat mitigation frame. Now, we're going to talk about attainable housing. So, Assembly Bill 540 altered the way that affordable housing is defined in state law by expanding housing affordability tiers and referring to this new structure as attainable housing. So there's five tiers of affordability that go up to 150% of the area median income which includes the previous what were dedicated as affordable housing tiers which went up to 80%. So the master plan has really always been required to address affordable housing and this state law change really requires us to have more of a focus on meeting our housing needs for our community and it still allows us to expand that up to 150% AMI. So, it provides more attention, more emphasis on that mid-range AMI households than previous verbiage, but still fully incorporates what we knew before as affordable housing. So, again, the master plan already had the foresight to address this broader concept of housing that's attainable to our workforce. It already considers the need for various product types to accommodate our population. Due to this, amendments made do not present a major shift in policy to the master plan, but really just aim to align our definitions in our framework with that new state law change. So, we currently have policies that aim to facilitate and incentivize affordable and attainable housing. And these slight changes again just align with what state law has changed to, which is up to that 150% AMI. I also want to point out here that we still have a focus on federally defined affordable housing due to our need and the differences in funding in that realm. So this concept of affordable housing is not lost in this attainable housing concept that's put forth. Lastly, there's some associated document management changes um in the red lines. This is things like dates, page numbers, the schedule of amendments reflecting these proposed changes. So all of that is included in the redline document. And again, these changes I discussed are really targeted due to timeline limitations. But again, we do believe in the future there is a larger update that's needed. in a in a bigger review that's warranted. So, with that, I have a proposed motion overhead and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the commission at this time? >> I know this meeting's gone a little longer than perhaps some expected. Well, one >> Commissioner Williams. >> Uh, that was very informative and very thorough and I appreciate that. I feel like it was definitely more informational than something that we were going to sit here and discuss. So, I'm happy to make a motion. >> Do we have any questions? One final ask. Okay, please proceed. >> Sorry. Prepared. Just pull it up. >> Uh, it's up there if you'd like. >> Oh, okay. Uh, Commissioner Williams, for the record, based on the compliance with the applicable fines, I move to adopt the amended amendment to the master plan uh by resolution and recommend city council approve the amendment subject to any conformance review by the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency. >> Commissioner Gonini. I second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. Recommendation carries 5. That concludes item C3. We will now move on to item D, business items. Mr. Really, anything under this tonight? >> Nothing this evening. >> Okay. Item E, Truckucky Meadows regional planning liaison report. Commissioner Gonfentini, can you please provide us with that update? >> Uh, the TMRPA uh regional planning commission determined that the consideration of the proposal of the Lakeidge Resort was necessary by unanimous vote. Uh the merits of the case will still be seen at a future meeting and the next meeting is April 23rd with an agenda forthcoming. >> Thank you very much. That concludes item E. Item F, future agenda items. Anything from staff on this tonight? >> Nothing this evening. >> Item G, public comment. Madame Clerk, >> we do not have any closing public comment. >> Thank you very much. Seeing as though chambers is empty, we will close item G. Item H for adjournment. Motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> So moved. >> Motion. Motion and second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Meeting I. Meeting adjourned. Night.