Okay, good evening. We will call the uh we will call this meeting to order. It's the regular meeting of the Reno City Planning Commission, Thursday, June 5th, 2025. And we will begin with the pledge of allegiance. Can I have uh Commissioner Jacerman give us a go to the flag of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we will start with roll call. Carrie Roer here. Sylvia Villan Noeva here. Manny Visera here. Christina Delviar is absent at this time. David Jakaman here. Alex Velto here. Jacob Williams here. We have a quorum. I just need to correct the record. I said June 5th, 18 or I said June 5th, 2025. I meant to say June 18th. The Rene City Planning Commission meeting for June 18th. So, thank you uh Commissioner Roier for correcting me. So, we will move on to public comment. This item is for either public comment on any action item for any general public comment. Do we have any public commenters? Members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the Zoom link provided on the agenda specifically https colonlinks.renino.govplanning gov/planning06 06-18-25. 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 an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer. If there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Uh we did receive uh correspondence that was general in nature and not specific to any item on this agenda. These were forwarded to the planning commission and have been or entered into the record. It doesn't look like anybody on Zoom has their hand raised at this time. Do we have anyone in the audience who would like to give public comment? Doesn't look like it. Do we have any Commissioner Roier? Yes. Thank you. Um, if you're looking and seeing a little different composition on the board today, we have Madame Chair. It is uh Commissioner Velva's last day after four years of service. So, I just want to take a minute to thank her and appreciate her for all she's done for the Reno Planning Commission. Thank you, Commissioner Rmwire. Commissioner Biser, for the record, I would just like to echo those sentiments. Uh, Madame Chair, Billa, thank you for your balanced approach over the four years of your service and the two years that I've had the pleasure of serving alongside you and I've learned a lot and I just want to salute you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the kind comments. Thank you. We will now move on to the approval of minutes for possible action. Item 4.1, Reno City Planning Commission, regular May 8th, 2025 minutes. I make a motion to approve. Second. All in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Okay. Approved. I would just like to say that Commissioner Delvr has logged on to the Zoom meeting. Good evening, Commissioner Delvr. Thanks for joining us. We will move on to item five, public hearings. Any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard will need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary. Alternatively, you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of this meeting. Item 5.1 staff report case number LDC250063. Do we have um I believe we open it up to the is it staff or we open it up to public comment presentations first? Yeah, we will open it up to a presentation from staff. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Carter Williams, associate planner for the record. Before you is a tenative map for Talis Valley villages 17, 18, and 19. This is a this project site is close to 50 acres located north of South Meadows Parkway and west of Veterans Parkway and it'll be um abuing the future Talis Valley Parkway. Um this is for 247 units. Um and this is site is also located west of village 22 which you saw in the previous uh hearing. The property is located in the Talis Valley Planned Unit development. Um and it's it's in a cluster of um PUDS including Bella Vista Ranch and Double Diamond Ranch. Um this PUD is generally characterized by a mix of commercial and residential. Um the master plan designation is suburban mixed use. Um and this um application is supported by policies um regarding neighborhood connections generally like multimmodal neighborhood connections. on the screen um is the three villages 17 18 and 19. Uh the access is taken from four points along Talis Valley Parkway. Starting with village 19. Um all villages have just over 80 lots and the setbacks are generally consistent for the area. In the yellow is South Meadows Parkway. Um the green is Talis Valley Parkway and then in the purple is a pedestrian path um that follows the length of the the project. Moving Oh, sorry, wrong way. Moving on to village 18. So you can see that pedestrian path is continuing along the uh west side of the property. Um you can also see the a village park. It's a neighborhood park that was contemplated in the in the Talis Valley PUD. um that'll support the broader um system of neighborhoods within this uh within the within the planned unit development. And moving on to village 17, 82 lots again. Um continuing that purple path all the way up until it connects back up to or connects to Talis Valley Val Parkway. Um and uh that that purple path um also uh butts a wetland mitigation area contemplated within the planned unit development. Um that wetland mitigation area is 54.5 acres. Um which so generally abotss village 17. Um it the impacts to the wetland area. Um there's no sorry this village does not impact directly the wetlands. Um but it does um have improvements in grading within the buffer areas that are regulated by the um section 404 permit by the Army Corps of Engineers. So because this wetland is a tributary to waters of the USA, the US Army Corps of Engineers is involved um and requires permitting. Um that permitting considers um impacts to the wetlands directly um improvements to the wetlands and um to those buffer areas to protect those wetlands um for the future. The 404 permit um considers native and riparian habitat restoration um within that wetland mitigation area and the surrounding buffer areas. Within the buffer areas themselves, there's strict disturbation limit limitations. They can't um use specific uh grading. They have they have to use specific grading tools, specific grading practices. And I think most importantly with um in this case there is establishment of new wetlands to um replace wetlands that were impacted um with the with the Talis Valley PUD. There's a five-year monitoring period that comes with the um implementation of the mitigate the wetland mitigation plan. Um it's five years or until the wetland mitigation plan is complete. Um and then there's a three-year additional period on um on top of that to en um to follow the continued health of the um ecological secession I guess of the of the of the wetlands. On the screen are the findings for a tenative map. Staff um was able to meet all the findings and then on the screen is the recommended motion. Um the applicant uh should be online to give a presentation and um we can um staff will be available for questions. We are moving Derek over right now. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yes, we can. Would you like to share your screen and start presenting? Yes. Perfect. Pull this up here real quick. Second. Oh, it says I can't share until because it's sharing somebody else's screen. All right. One second, please. Yeah. Derek, we're just going to pull up your presentation and you can just tell us when to go to the next slide. Yep, sounds great. All right. Uh, thank you members of the planning commission. Derek Kirkland with Wood Rogers. We're representing the applicant tonight for Telus Valley Villages 1718 and 1910 Tenant. Next slide, please. Uh, I think Carter did a great job of covering where this is. Um, again, this was uh I think you've seen these tenative maps over the last few years. Um, the latest was uh 2021 for this area. Um, as of last December, as you're aware, the the master developer did change. Um, they have some of their own ideas in terms of loting products. Um, and so we're actually working through um several amended tenative maps in this town center area. Um, and so that's really what tonight is about. Um, uh, next slide, please. Um the overall tenative map is 247 lots. Uh the previous approved tenative maps for this area uh was actually in 2021 was actually 326 lots. Um a lot of that changed. We did move the park uh further down. Um and we did there was some town homes in this area which uh we have removed. Um the town homes will actually come into a later phase of the project. Um, and as Carter had mentioned, about little over 80 lots in each phase, uh, with a minimum lot size of about 3,900 square feet. Um, each village will have, um, some different product types. And generally with these small lots, this is typically um, what you see with missing middle. Um, which is really what a lot of this this uh, planned unit development was about. And I think uh pointing out um you know still gives people uh the ability to have a single family detached lot which is most of the products um you'll see on this side um but having the smaller lot and and providing some more obtainable um houses for people which is basically the missing middle. Uh next slide please. Um, as as Carter had mentioned, uh, we're going to be providing same as as what was required in the PUD, that 10- foot wide multi-use path along the west, which will connect, uh, to the multi-use path along all the backbone roadways along South Meadows, um, and ultimately providing connection to the regional trail network with um, uh, the Veteran Parkway pathway system and then also connectivity via sidewalks and some other trails uh, to the existing ing schools. Um, next slide please. Um, in terms of site access and circulation, so the backbone is underway, um, in terms of design and and will be moving forward. Uh, that includes basically this extension of Echo Valley or what we're calling Telus Valley Parkway, uh, which will extend north providing the main access to these three villages. Um and there'll also be um the Telus Town Center Parkway uh which will provide access back to Veterans Parkway. There's two traffic lights, one at the Town Center Parkway in Veterans and one at uh Talis Valley Parkway in South Meadows. Um a lot of of what you see here is actually less lots than was it what was originally anticipated in the PUB. Um and that traffic report uh was done um for assuming more lots. Um and we did provide an updated traffic memo with this uh tenant map application. And so those traffic lights and this backbone roadway network are adequate to serve these villages. Next slide please. Um in terms of the wetland mitigation, I know Carter did a great job of covering that so I won't get into too much deal detail, but generally the permit is approved. uh it requires us a minimum of of 54 acres. Um and generally what that means is there is a little bit of flexibility uh in terms of of how we kind of arrange that the the majority of it set but we do have some flexibility um and knowing that as the design progresses we're going to be pushing and pulling in certain areas um once as design moves forward. And so we'll continue to work with with the Army Corps on that. Um but generally at the end of the day when when we're all when everything's said and done we have to have those those 54 acres and protect certain areas which uh villages 17 18 and 19 actually have actually giving back about 2.27 acres overall compared to the previous approved tenative map. So um definitely you know understand the the wetlands and we are honoring uh the approved permit there. Next slide please. Uh the neighborhood park um as I mentioned earlier um the previous tenative maps did also include the 3acre neighborhood park which is a requirement of the PUB for this this area um and so we are while we are relocating it that the 3acre park will still be provided um it'll be connected via the path systems sidewalks uh and then there's requirements in the PUB so as we get into final design and work on a final park plan um we will be honoring everything in the PUD from, you know, providing the gathering spaces, turf areas, um, and there'll be some other recreation amenities, but that park design will come later with the final improvement plans. Uh, next slide, please. Um, the PD meets or exceeds all the requirements uh, in terms of or the excuse me, the the proposed villages meet or exceed all the requirements um, of the PUD. Um, so nothing really to highlight there. Next slide, please. Uh and with that, um I'll go ahead and end my presentation. Uh this these projects, as I mentioned, they were already approved, um tenative maps for them. We're really just updating them to meet kind of the requirements of the new master developer, still meeting all the PUD requirements. Um and we do agree with um all the conditions and and staff was able to make the findings. Um with that said, um I'll go ahead and end my presentation. We do have members of our engineering team and um other team members if there's specific questions but thank you for your time. Thank you. We will now move on to public comment. Uh it looks like we have some Let's start with the folks online. Do we have anyone online present to speak on? No one has their hand raised right now. Okay. Okay, thank you. We will now move on to public comment for those here today. I have uh a um request to speak here. Is it is it Jay Howard? J. Hi Jay, please. Did you want to speak today? Okay great. Uh good evening to the members of the commission. Hope all are well tonight. Um, my name is Jay Howard. I'm with the Truckucky Meadows Parks Foundation. And my program is Truckucky Meadows Trails, which is a regional trails program um, here in the Truckucky Meadows that seeks to improve our trail network, both soft trails and hard trails, the pathways, um, and create connectivity that we don't currently have. So, I want to speak tonight on on this project um and just mention um that uh the uh well, let me back up a little bit. The the major effort of my program starting out a couple years ago was to put together this Truckucky Meadows Regional Trails Plan um that I have here on the viewer. Not sure if it's up or not. Um but uh also um we're in the process of implementing this plan. Uh this plan by the way has been adopted by the city of Reno and is supported by city of Reno parks and so forth. Um and we're pursuing that same support um throughout the Truckucky Meadows. We've got Wo County and we're working on the city of Sparks. Um so there's also a number of projects that I'm pursuing. One is called the Virginia Range and I just want to describe that briefly. that is a regional trail system from the Hidden Valley trail system that th those existing trails all the way down to Geiger grade. And so it's very important for me with this planning project to create as much connectivity um to neighborhoods and to roadways um and and people that are going to be the users of this trail as as possible. Um, so I support Talis Valley in that they've got a plan for a trail network within their development. And I just want to present myself, kind of introduce myself in the project um to planners um and and make the request that, you know, we want to work with Talis Valley as much as possible um in order to connect with the trails and pathways that they have planned. And there's been some um discussion already with with the owners, the Sunny Hills uh uh um Sunny Hills Ranchos, the folks that own the land. And uh um that's it. I just want to kind of present that project and um let everybody know that I'm a resource for further planning and connectivity with this project. Um so I hope to reach out to folks and I or I hope they reach out to me. Thank you. Thank you. I have a request to speak from William um what's the mantle mantle just hastily scrolling William Mantel for the record. Uh thank you for having me tonight commission. Thank you m commissioner villain on your service. Thank you for going in there the whole term not resigning like some other bodies have seen before. Um, I'm just here like I was last time to just again ask you to make sure that you're being you're being astute and critical and aware of the promises that were made by the developer. Even though I understand things have switched hands, some things are changed. Tenative maps are being adapted. The last time I was here, heard that there's still plenty of potential for multifamily housing in the other zones and lots and neighborhoods that will come to bear fruit, but that wasn't a commitment to multifamily housing because potential is not commitment. I just want to remind you that that is something that we were told we were going to have and I think that's something South Reno could really use and should have. Um, besides that, there's just a lot of wildlife along those wetlands. And I don't know whether the construction periods also combine themselves with particular breeding phases of this wildlife. So any interruption to those animals doing their thing, you know, large construction equipment makes it difficult for birds to call each other because they can't hear over it and then they can't find, you know, the bird with the perfect plumage to make more birds and whatnot. So, I just encourage you to make sure that everything is going the way that you would like it to go. And um I personally am ignorant of when the mitigation plans for the 1.25 to 1.5 shovels out are coming to fruition throughout the construction phases. So, I don't understand that. You may already understand that, but I'd love to be educated if this is the right venue for that. just to make sure that during the phase of construction again on a flood plane that the potential for flood is already being mitigated rather than the construction will occur and then the flood will be mitigated because one of those ways is worse for everybody else than the other. So that's all I got. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. We will um go to the commission for disclosures. We'll start we'll start with Commissioner Bera. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Bera for the record. Um, read and reviewed provided materials. I am familiar with the site. I had an exchange with the applicant. Um, that's it. Commissioner Roar Meer read and reviewed materials. Familiar with the site. Commissioner Villaina read and reviewed the materials. I am also familiar with the site. Commissioner Williams on the site. Commissioner Jockman uh exchanged email with the applicant representative. Uh, Commissioner Valto and received uh emails and familiar with the site. Commissioner WR, same. Okay, thank you. So, now we will um open it up to questions from the commission question. Do we have any? I do. Great. Uh, let's start with Commissioner Roire. Great. Um, I have a question for sort of both Derek and Carter. Same question. Uh, what do you define as missing middle? I've asked this before. It's a term that's used a lot, but it can mean a lot of different things based on context. So, can you explain how this project achieves the missing middle and like what you think that price point means? And then I'd like to hear from the applicant so they probably know what the price point will be. So, I can start from staff's perspective. Carter Williams, associate planner for the record. um from staff's perspective, I mean the the handbook itself for the mixed neighborhood explicitly indicates higher I mean a higher density relative to the single family um zone. So from a density perspective that is something that um staff sees as as pursuing um more of an attainable housing model for the city um and also a mix of housing units. So, um those two things both identified in policy um in the handbook and the master plan um that would be staff's position on that point. Okay. And and Derek, how does that mean for this PUD? Why why is this the missing middle? It's single family. Yeah. Uh Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. So, when we did the the beauty, um you know, you look at South Reno, there's a lot of I would say you see a lot of typical 5,000, 6,000, 10,000 square foot lots. You know, get up by the high school, you're getting even bigger up towards, you know, third to half acre lots. I think the point of this was obviously it's kind of, you know, one of the last kind of infill sites for South Reno. Um, and I think what we, you know, there's a lot of discussion about wanting to see some higher densities, wanting to see kind of more attainable, um, houses. Um, and so obviously this means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, right? And so I think at the end of the day, um, what was agreed upon in the PUD was a minimum of eight dwelling units per acre. um which this site and so a lot of that is you see you know we're minimum I think 3,800 square foot lots which is much smaller um this is a detached product type um but there will be some you know you're going to start to see some you know potentially some town homes you're the single family attached um may not in this phase but in in some of the other phases there are some multifamily sites uh in Talis Valley um and then it gives an opportunity to see some different types of products. And I think the whole point of that was if we can make some smaller lots, still pro provide some detached product types, but help keep the cost down. Um, and also provide opportunity for some more single family attached in South Reno, uh, was really the point of that. And I think we're we're required by the PD to meet that eight dwelling units per acre minimum on, uh, this town center area. So just so I'm clear, the definition is solely at the discretion of density and not based on the housing typology or price point. Yeah, it's and that was partially because they could, you know, we they're trying to find, you know, how are we going to measure that and so it was that basically it came down to the PUD and what was what was approved was the eight dwelling units per acre. Okay. Any more? Commissioner Roire, Commissioner Bera. Yes. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up on that, I guess more for clarity, uh, Carter, um, based on Derek's definition of a um, missing middle, would that be staff's position as well on how they currently define the missing middle? Because I know we received a presentation months back from, I believe, Angela on uh, on the missing middle, and it's been it's been a while, and I'm not I don't remember what that definition was or if if it even was baked by that time. Yeah. Well, yes. I think we staff would um would agree with that that definition. And I mean to Derek's um point about the handbook required density minimum densities. It did not require necessarily or directly um minimum uh specific housing types for these villages. However, there are policies. So, um, in this in the previous case with village 22, we had, um, kind of a mix of different housing intensities within the same village. This case, we don't necessarily see that, but they're all meeting that minimum density, but there is still land area in the mixed neighborhood. And there's other um, land use categories within the PUD that are are higher intensity as well. So we'll I staff feels that we have the capacity to implement um that range through the rest of the land through through different approvals but for this case it I think it meets the the intent of the PE. Great. Thank you Carter and Madam Chair if you'll indulge me. I just have a few rapid response ones probably going to be to Carter and Derek. Um Derek or Carter. Um I think we had a nice brief comment from Mr. Howard from the regional trails initiative. Um would you all be open to engaging with him on some sort of um uh uh partnership with some of these presented pedestrian pathways and anything where there might be some synergy. I'll let Kirkland speak for that. Yeah, Derek Kirkland Wood Rogers. Um yeah, and Jay and I have had several conversations. So, I I definitely appreciate Jay coming and and I do think it's an important part partnership and I I think that there's some great opportunities um to look at the overall connectivity. We've talked um quite a bit about some opportunities and I think we're going to keep having some of those conversations. So, yeah. Great to hear, Derek. And um on that in that same vein, will the pedestrian pathways be open to the public? The ones presented in tonight's presentation? Yes. Excellent. And I believe we had public comment as well relating to the potential adverse impacts of wildlife and are we a-ok okay there. There's nothing's going to happen to the adjacent wildlife during construction. Well, the the I mean the wetland mitigation plan discussed that to some extent, but there might Army Corp of Engineer part. Yeah. Okay. I don't know if uh Derek if there was anything specific about your your procedures that would further support in during construction after final map. Uh yeah, this is Derek Kirkland Wood Rogers. Um you know, obviously we had to go through an extensive permitting process. I'm not 100% familiar with what exactly the mitigation for the wildlife that is in there. Um but I know we're we have to honor their permit and even through construction of what's going on right now. All that all that's part of the permit. So, fantastic. And just one last one. Um I was just curious, how come this one didn't come before us together with last week's or are they separate? Uh or not. Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. Um so, you know, we're going through design and kind of redesigning these tenative maps. It's just a matter of timing of um you know, all of our engineering team and staff um producing these maps um and submitting them to the city. So you'll pro you'll probably see a lot of us over the next few months. Okay. Um and it's just a it's just a you know it's just comes down to design and it takes a while to design these. So we have to kind of spread them out so we have the resources to get them done. Oh that's great. It's good to hear that there's a lot of uh intentional uh effort put into the design. Um I was just curious there. I wasn't sure if I had dja vu for a moment. Thank you. That's all I have for now. Other commissioners. Sure. Commissioner Jockman. So, two questions here. Um, as a part of the previous village that was approved uh about a month ago or last meeting, um there's a signal going in at Echo Echo Valley. So, if we approve this um and then say the other village doesn't go forward, are both of them independently conditioned with that off-site mitigation? Yes, that's correct. So they're conditioned to the the signalization the um improvements have to go in prior regardless of which CO villages move forward first. Correct. And then the other question was about the wetland mitigation. So um in the staff report they indicated that there's a obviously a wetland mitigation plan for the whole development. Um in the scenario that we approved this but nothing else moves forward. Is staff satisfied with the wetland mitigations that are presented within this tenative map standing alone? So a part of this tenative map is actually the full review of that wet mitigation area. So even though the impacts are just like those minor impacts that are abuing staff reviewed the the full army corps permit um to make sure it was consistent what was what with with what is required with the handbook um and the mitigation measures therein. So staff, yes, staff finds it um sufficient. Okay. Thank you. I yield. Commissioner Villanova, I actually a lot of my questions are about the wetlands. So I understand there was a permit issued. Can you tell me a little bit about that process? What does that look like? Because in the last application that came before us, you know, I always look for that. Is this in a flood zone? What what are the risks? Do we need to be concerned? And I looked at the last application. I did review for that. that this seems to be um this particular tenative map seems to be more um involved with regard to some of the wetland. I think it's because it's on the other side of the of veterans and so can you tell me what is that review process not specifically with the agency um but what did you guys review that you're like okay this is fine and what was submitted so with so to go back to the the Talis Valley handbook I mean the wetland was identified at that time as being impacted um and there's there's a couple different sections that go up through the this the entire development that range in in their I mean different impacts there's a section at the very north northern post that's being um preserved as is of this applica application or it's not a part of this application. So this is like this is the whole Talis Valley planned unit development. So they analyzed it um uh the whole whole development um first before not not um separate from each individual tenative map. So so we had a more comprehensive review. So at that point what is identified? Is it just all the wetlands? So that early on before you have any of the tenant maps, what's the city's process for saying okay these are the areas of concern I guess through through that process there was a wetland delineation map that was that was submitted with the with the tentative map there were um code requirements within the t sorry I said tenant map within the handbook the handbook identified a procedure um to develop a wetland mitigation plan that goes along with the whole yes the entire ped And what triggers that wetland mitigation plan to to come before uh the city um is either a tenative map that's adjacent to the um the wetland mitigation area or a separate site plan review. In this case, it was it's this. It's this tenative map that we that we looked at because it's adjacent. Yes. Okay. So, this would be the time to kind of review the wetlands uh if we are going to review because it's adjacent. So, it's triggered which it wasn't triggered in the others. Correct. Yes. Okay. So, I'm these are relevant questions. Okay. Um, so I'm gonna Oh, he left. Does it um I do have questions, but I'm gonna see if anyone online, Christina or Commissioner Belveltto, do you guys have questions at this st time? Um, I just Sorry. Sorry. No, no, sorry, Alex. Um, I have one question. Go ahead. Um, and it's probably for for both for both uh Carter and the applicant. Um, you know, we've seen a couple of these villages come before us and we keep hearing that there's the potential of multifamily. Um, and so how many more of these are we going to see? And it would just be really great to see some of the ones that are talking about multifamily homes or um, you know, again, sort of working working with what the city is looking for in terms of density, population. I I might defer the first question for how many more of these you'll see to to Mr. Kirkland because I mean like in this case there's three villages submitted at once so they may have a better idea of what what's to come. Uh yeah, Derek Kirkland Wood Rogers for the record. Um basically every time we do single family attached single uh single family residential you'll see a tenative map. Um, for some of the multifamily areas, it's a a slightly different process, but there are um there are planned multifamily. Um, basically what we did is push a lot of the the higher dense stuff up towards um veterans mainly because there's better access directly off of Veterans Parkway. Um, and so we're sort of working our way south to north. And so you'll you'll start to see um some of those different product types, you know, probably in the next few months, probably next couple of submitts if I had if I had to guess. Obviously, you know, caveat that that everything is market driven, so things change and um and that's why we have the PED uh is really to kind of regulate, you know, what we can and cannot do. Um but there's also the market element to that, too. So, um, but we're pushing forward and we're going to be submitting, you know, right now we're submitting 10 10 of the maps, you know, probably once every month or every other month. So, you'll start to see some different product types here coming up soon. And I guess Commissioner LR, from a density perspective, what you're looking right now, the mixed neighborhood is probably the middle of the road as far as density um relative to the other areas within the PUD. So there's a there's higher density areas like like um Mr. Kirkland indicated um closer to veterans and then um there's other single family areas that are um north of this site that are slightly less density but still okay that would provide mix. It's just you know we kind of keep hearing about it and I know there's a lot of faces and I know there's a lot of villages but it would be good to start seeing some of those coming through so we have a good sort of good confidence that this is uh progressing the way that that we're all hoping for. So, so I appreciate that. Um, and then all my other questions have been answered so far. Thank you, Commissioner Belto. No questions. Thank you for checking. Okay. Um, do um so I can you pull up exhibit E? I think that's the wetlands uh from the presentation or Yes, from the presentation. Oh, maybe yours is different than mine. I think exhibit E in the staff report is a little different, but this shows the buffer areas. Are you I think Okay. Well, this is f. So, I think this is fine. So, this is it. So, in green, what's in green? The green is the it's the buffer areas surrounding the actual wetland um delineation. What is buffer defined as for you? So within the Army Corps of Engineer permit, they have different classes um depending on the the um condition of that specific um wetlands. Some of some of them are um like like storage areas. A lot more of them are um in this case in this area they are like channels of water. So they have these buffer areas that follow the course of the channel to protect I mean water quality that I mean and the the um the man-made butter or butters buffers I believe this one is not man-made but there are man-made and there's there's a mix between this area because some of this is enhanced area enhanced existing areas of wetlands others are established um from wetlands that have been moved effectively as a result of this project or just in general as Yes. As a result of this project. Result of this project. Okay. And so those aren't identified here at the uh the the reason I'm identifying this specific section um is because this um this is the area that's that is directly impacted by village 17. Sorry, I shouldn't be say it's not directly impacted. It's adjacent to this is the area that is adjacent to village 17. the areas that were already contemplated to be impacted in the Talis Valley um h handbook that sets a different village. So, and I I think I respect that we're analyzing the the wetland mitigation plan. I have to it's in the absolutely but um the areas of of direct impact were already considered and decided upon with the adoption of the Talis Valley PUB. So, it's not necessarily we're not looking at what's being moved. We're looking at how it's being um ho how we're um co restoring coexisting reestablishing the the new wetlands that are coming to replace the So these are going to be new wetlands a lot of it will be yes okay and so in looking at this we're approving the what the coexistence with the new wetland with and the site yes and the and the tenative map okay and so the this I don't I haven't review there's we don't get a lot of the wetland reviews so at least I haven't seen a whole lot so let me go to the application um I'm just looking at the application to see So it app it received approval of um Army Corps of Engineers and they what did they tell you guys? They were just saying you got a temporary per not you but I'm sorry the applicant. So So the applicant received a temporary permit or the the Army Corps reviewed it. Good to go. We have no concerns. So, so to I guess to continue from the So, we identified or the applicant identified that the wetlands exist within the Talis Valley PD. They went forward with the the Army Corps um permit. Um then there's a mitigation permit that was submitted to the city for review to implement that that permit. The permit itself tells us um they have a lot of conditions that they have to meet in order to implement their plan in the permit. in the permit itself and and that is enforced by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers. Okay. So that if I was a I was walking by and I saw, oh no, there's bunch of oil leaking into this, I would report it to the Army Corps of Engineers. I would not report it to the city. I think that the the Army Corps of Engineers definitely has the the jurisdiction over this area, but I mean there is to be fair some I mean it's in our PUD. It's it's to some extent joint from staff's perspective at this point. the the 40 section 404 permit um it effectively meets the requirements of the handbook. So in its implementation staff is comfortable with the um uh that this the policies and the standards in the handbook and the master plan will be met. Okay. I guess I just I don't know anything about like what it looks like but I'm expected to approve it. Um that's my concern. Does anyone else have questions? Commissioner Bera. Sure. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Just um, hey, Carter. And this one might be for Derek. I I do recall that during the presentation there was a reference to there being less lots than originally proposed. And maybe this was before my time, some prior incarnation of the sorts. And I was just curious, uh, why would there be less lots than before? I think that probably would be best answered by by Derek. Yeah. Uh, Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. So generally um when the master developer changed in uh end of last year and they obviously had some of their own ideas in terms of product types one of the one of the things that was moved was we shifted a lot of the higher density stuff as I mentioned closer to um the new roadway going into Veterans Parkway because it's going to have a new traffic light and it actually made the traffic um the overall traffic circulation much better. Okay. Um, and it actually provided a better transition from the traditional single family to more of your, you know, your kind of your medium density, smaller lot, uh, detach product. And then as we get further, um, further to the north, excuse me, we'll then we'll start to you'll start to see some of the higher density stuff come back. So, while it's an it's an overall less lots on these current tenative maps, overall the town center is going to be um there's not going to be that much of a difference in in terms of what was previously approved. Great. Thank you, Derek. That that does help and it does tee me up for maybe my follow-up question. It's um you mentioned traffic and um we we are moving a bit more eastward here to as one of you mentioned you or Carter like the last bit of land for for infill at least on the eastern side and I was curious if you can speak to what the vision or integration plan is with multimmodal transportation. Uh currently as I believe most folks know on this project there is a pretty neat uh pathway along veterans veterans and the adjacent neighborhoods and it looks like there's going to be a public pathway within this uh proposed uh area uh this evening and I was just curious as we pursue the missing middle which I presume over time will be more uh high density at some point um which often I believe um infers that people might want to commute uh in different modes be beyond just single cars. I was just curious if there is a plan with multimodal or if y'all are working with RTC or other partners in the community to ensure folks can get there and back in different modes. Yeah. So, I mean integrated with the the handbook itself and the standards of the handbook, pedestrian and bicycle, that's that's a that's a clear policy point that's throughout. Um the uh Veterans Parkway um is identified as a greenway corridor. So anytime we can make connections from individual neighborhoods or commercial centers or neighborhood centers um we we will um by condition or and honestly we would haven't even needed to. I think that the um applicants have been done done a good job in designing it that way. Okay. Um, as far as coordination with um, agencies like RTC, the nearest bus stop, unfortunately um, for this this site is it's it's pretty far. I think it's like over a mile away. Um, I think that um, I don't know if it's necessarily something that we can plan for at this time. Um but the um increased density in this area may we may see um uh those types of uh connections with um public transit made in the future. Okay. Do you know what would trigger um a review by regional uh partners such as RTC to kind of look into um potentially extending their their bus routes for instance in the future? uh when there is more high density in that area. Do you I don't personally know their triggers. I know that I mean the they have a um regional transportation plan that they look they look at that um general high level connectivity. Um I don't know if there's a smaller scale level where they look at adding one more stop or something like that. Um but thanks Carter. just trying to look at this kind of holistically from, you know, a systems perspective, especially since there's a couple areas that we're supposed to consider, uh, like traffic impacts and so forth. So, I appreciate it. Uh, Derek, do you want to speak to any of that or you okay with what Carter mentioned? Uh, Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. Yeah, I mean, I I think Carter pretty much covered it. I mean, we have had conversations with RTC and, you know, unfortunately just the South Reno bus is pretty limited. Um, but we do believe that with the the circulation and adding in all the the shared use pass, I mean, we're we're definitely adding a component. Um, I think that's one thing you see in Deonte Ranch is all the trail network. I think there's like over 20 miles of trails. So, we connect to that. We connect to the Veterans Parkway path. So I think from you know planning for the future of alternative transportation with the shared use net path network that we've put in to TS valley I think there's a huge opportunity for that which also if if RTC expands the bus service out there you know people can easily get on those paths and walk to future bus stops. So I think I think we're we're planning for it. I mean it would be great to see more bus service out there but I think it's you still several years down the road. So Okay, great. Thank you gentlemen. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else? Um, you guys ready to open it? Okay, go ahead and open for discussion. I'll kick it off. Um, so I generally have no concerns about the PUD. It's already been reviewed and approved. I'm getting really frustrated with the use of terms quite frankly improperly in a miscommunication st. Um, I think it sends the wrong message to the public who's hearing these things. This, you can't advertise single family detached housing as missing middle if you're not going to advertise the typology of the house and why it's smaller or it has a different footprint or a different price point. Um, I I think that term gets thrown around very widely in the projects that we see. We're not seeing the holistic plan for this development. We're getting these PUDs and pieces. it feels like it just keeps coming to us is there's a promise of density later. Um and and I think that could be addressed at the next presentation when the next wave comes in. Um also to call this infill is really a misnomer. There's nothing about this that this is infill. This is on the periphery of our city. There's an extension of new infrastructure required. There is um no services including bus which we just covered. So it's not infill. Is it an extension of our city? Absolutely. And it could be justified that that's needed. But don't please do not come before this board again uh because I've asked these questions before and used the terms in a way that does not relate to the planning profession. Thank you. Anyone else? Uh yeah, Commissioner Joman, I'll say a few things. So, um, obviously we're looking at a tenative map and and some of these are comments to fellow commissioners and some of these are comments to the applicant for some of those future items come in because I think there is a desire to see some of that middle um missing middle housing that um is not in this tenative map and could be in some of the others. I think it's labeled as village 16 and maybe village one. Um, when reviewing the PUB, there are a lot of conditions that are associated with building out some of these. We've got some donations. Uh, we have the heavy additional flood mitigations. These were all items that were discussed, you know, roughly 5 years ago and so forth. We've got open space, greenways, parks. Um, all of these ultimately add some level of cost to getting to some of those villages that we would like to see. And so um obviously recognizing what can or cannot be done within the confines of a tenative map when those come forward because I certainly would like to see those as well. I recognize that you've got to get the backbone infrastructure built for many of these items and you know if we have a let's say it is village 16 where we want to put in a number of multif family uh units. We've got to build a bunch of roads to get there. We've got to get to some of these wetland mitigations. We've got to, you know, per the PUD, we've got to make some of these donations, commitments to open space and all these sort sort of things that I I'm just speculating here, but I don't think they're going to pencil with a single village for multif family housing. I certainly want to see that come forward as well. So, as the applicant is moving forward, if there are any sort of conditions when you're discussing this with uh prospective builders, if there are conditions that are preventing you from having those market conditions be in place, uh Derek, uh you know, please feel free to bring that up in discussions because we want to make it possible for many of those uh products that are the missing metal come for before this uh planning commission. So, I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Bisera, just wanted to echo similar sentiments and maybe um take a different uh approach. I think that um oftent times there's a missed opportunity to educate um stakeholders here, whether it's ourselves or the broader public that's tuning in. And I think uh Chair Roar um can uh I empathize with her frustration. I I share those frustrations. I share the concerns of chair villain Nova around the wetlands and I think that um as we're talking about the missing middle or you know other jargon if you will I think it's good to use this opportunity to just uh maybe uh define what those are to ensure that we are all on the same page or or to ensure that we're not on the same page so we can get there and we can identify uh gaps that we can help you all bridge where it's possible within the realm of our uh kind of purview. Um so uh it seems promising. I um you know am am happy to uh make a motion in support of this but I will um I probably don't have the demeanor to uh suggest the the I don't know the the expectation I have for future presentations but I do share them as my fellow commissioners here that I do expect more uh in these presentations in the future to ensure that we level up and ensure that the public knows exactly what we're and that we can all uh get good products. That's a win-win for everyone, the applicant and the broader public and community. Thank you. Online commissioners, commissioner, I have no questions or comments. Thank you. Belto commissioner Belto. Nope. Thank you, Bill. I have comments. So, my comments are about the wetlands. Um, and it is relevant to this convers to the application because it's part of our review. Um, I if I was on this commission when this project came forward, it probably would have been a no vote. um the envir the the environment in that area for um animals and um birds and other creatures and um the biodiversity there just seems um very sensitive and it's unfortunate that we have to centrally mitigate all of these things so that we can develop a bunch of houses. Um but unfortunately this application has been approved. Um the PUB was approved and I don't have a lot of information about the wetlands. Um actually I don't know anything about the mitigation really. Um it's apparently it was all left up to the army corps which is fine but it's if I look here under tenative map um approval of tenative maps shall be subject to the approval of the criteria set forth herein and it includes the potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Um it also includes um physical characteristics of the land such as flood plane, slope and soil. Um it also includes um see there was one other one um whether or not it um is compliant with environmental standards. So, or excuse me, here it is. Um, provide safe environment and and safe environment to pedestrians and people. Um, I mean, I think that includes wildlife as well, but um, so this is relevant to the conversation. It's unfortunate that it's so integrated in the PUB that it's hard for me to make a showing as to why um, I can't approve this tenative map. Um, but like I said, if I was if I was on this commission at the time this came before me, I would have certainly been a no vote um to the way that this ultimately played out. Um, but unfortunately here we are today. So I I probably will be a yes vote. Um, and so those are my comments. Anyone else? No. Okay. Um, does anyone want to make a motion? Sure. Commissioner Bisera, happy to make a motion if um our supporting staff wouldn't mind putting up the motion on the screen for me. Great. In the matter of case number LDC25-000063, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the tenative map subject to conditions listed in the staff report. And I can make all the findings. Commissioner Jockman second. Commissioners, all in favor? I I This is Commissioner Vill Web. I'm actually gonna I changed my mind. I'm going to be opposed. I just don't think it's appropriate in this space um for the reasons I stated earlier. I'm looking at this and I can't I just can't make the findings. Um so I am going to be a no vote on this particular tenative map. Um all right. Anyone else? All right. Motion passes. Good luck with your tenative map. Am I missing anything, Heather? Are we okay to move on to item six? Uh, yes, we're we're good to move on to the next item. I do think I forgot though, I'm so sorry, that we received correspondence um for item 5.1 and I have entered it into the record and it's forwarded to the planning commission. Okay. Thank you. Um, we will now open item six, Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison report. And who will be providing that? We did not have a meeting since our last meeting, so no report. Okay. Thank you. Uh, we will move on to item seven, staff announcements. Thank you. Just real real quick. Um, regarding upcoming training opportunities, our next planning commission and on July 16th, there'll be a presentation on roles and responsibilities of the planning commission. We will have a new planning commissioner joining as well. Um previous action taken by council on June 11th council upheld planning commission's recommendation and referred this the zone change request for mixed use suburban to mixed employment security circle for seconded at their next council meeting. Uh yes commissioner baser. Yes. Thank you madam chair. Um Nate um you you gave us one date and I know last time uh uh Commissioner Roire had asked um Mike if we can get dates for there's there's been like a plethora of requests. Do you know if there's some dates for some of the other matters that is all the information we have to relay at this time but we can I won't back that message. Okay. Thank you Nate. I'd uh also want to mention that I think we've had the roles and responsibilities training prior to understanding we have a new composition um of planning commissioners. Perhaps that could be delved into or revisited prior to coming. I think the content could be um maybe a little bit more exemplary around what we do here at the city of Reno. Anyone else? Uh okay. So we will uh move on to item eight. Commissioner suggest I can't speak. Commissioners suggestions for future agenda items. Sure. Commissioner Visera, let's add to your list there, Nate. Um there was recently on the Nevada legislature uh AB96, I believe, as it relates to um heat mitigation efforts which was approved for I believe Wo and Clark County. And I think it would be a good opportunity as part of, you know, these future presentations that we're requesting information on to see how the city is beginning to think about how we're going to be addressing that within our master plan uh and other new uh and existing ordinances. Uh because it seems like it would be really pertinent for us to all kind of get on same page and and how we're going to be evaluating uh future projects. Okay. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. We will move on to item number nine, public comment. This item is for a public comment on any action item or for general public comment. Anyone in the room? Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I'll just say um, Commissioner Va Via Noea, it's been nice getting to know you. I appreciate um, hearing your perspective and learning from you during my brief time on this commission where we've overlapped. Uh, and I'm serious that we need to get a dinner together with our mutual friend Tyler Jacob. Sounds good. Uh, thank you. I appreciate those, uh, kind comments and it's been pleasure working with you as well. Actually, um, since we're on public comments, I want to, um, it's it's been really great. This is probably, no discredit to the others, other uh, folks that I've served with, but this has probably been my uh, favorite commission team to serve with um, since I've been on the last four years. Um, I'm also uh grateful to staff. They've been really helpful uh throughout the process and allowing me to answer my questions and um allowing me to be as effective as possible for the community um that we serve. So, thank you. All right. I'll have Commissioner Ber one last remark under public comment. Uh one last thank you. Uh and there is a written remark uh that goes a little deeper into my appreciation to you, Madam Chair. Um, and also, uh, for those interested, there is a gallery reception outside with City of Reno and Holland Project for those tuning in on the interwebs if you're looking to something do with your family. It's family friendly or those in the audience. Thank you. Okay, we will um Oh, I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Sure. Um, we received a request to speak form, but she had to leave, so I will put it into the record um after the meeting. Okay, sounds good. All right. Sorry, Commissioner Belto real quick. And Commissioner Monoeva, I appreciate you on the commission. I know we have not always agreed, but I do appreciate your perspective and wish you the best of luck with your your next venture. Thank you, Commissioner. All right, that's it. Have a good night. Adjournment uh is 704. Thank you.