Make sure she can. Carrie, can you hear us? Yes. Can start the meeting whenever you're ready. All right. We'll open the June 16th meeting with the planning commission, the city of Reno. Um, and we will begin with the pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner Delvr. Can we go through roll call, please? Tina Gpentini. Manny Bera here. Christina Delviar here. David Jockman here. Alex Felto here. Jacob Williams here. Carrie Roire here. We have a quorum. Perfect. All right, we'll begin with public comment. This is for any item either on the agenda or for general comment. Do we have anyone wishing to speak? Okay, let me read this into the record first. It should be noted for those that um those in attendance 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. We did receive um public comment that was general in nature that was forwarded to the planning commission and has been entered into the record. I did not receive any request to speak forms for this item. And do we have anybody on Zoom? And no one on Zoom has raised their hand. I see one hand. Would you like to come to the front? Please state your name and then fill out a comment card after you're done. My name is Craig Weaver. Um, good afternoon. I'm a resident in Northwest Reno up on Fox Trail Drive. I wanted to comment today on the proposed zoning change for the Moose Ridge zone change project. So, the reason I'm here is I'm concerned that misleading information has been provided to the community and that other community members, particularly that residence, would be here. But for that misleading information, the misleading information was provided by provided by Rubicon Design Group. I've got that letter right here in front of me. It was just dropped off at my front door. Same thing with my other neighbors. And essentially what this letter says is that the zone change is going to be consistent with the existing homes that are built on Moose Ridge. That is not true. So the existing homes on Moose Ridge Drive are between 1/3 and one quarter acre lots. They're single family residences. Most of them have three car garages. They have backyards. The zone change that's being requested is from SF3 to SF8. SF8 would allow homes to be built on the vacant land above Moose Ridge on 18th of an acre lots. 1/8 of an acre. It looks like they're trying to do zero lot line development. So 1/8 of an acre lots with zero lot line is not consistent with the existing build on Moose Ridge Drive. I think if they were truthful in this disclosure on why they wanted to do the zone change, more of my neighbors would be here. I see a couple, but I think there would be more. So the concern that I have is that they're attempting to develop 65 homes on 16 acres and yet they're representing it's consistent with the existing built homes on Moose Ridge which are on one quarter and 1/3 acre lots with threecar garages. So I'd like the planning commission to take that in consideration when determining whether or not to allow this project to move forward. I feel like more accurate information should be provided to the community so they could be here, be heard as well. Thank you. Please fill out a request to speak form for this item. It's right here. Thank you. Seeing no other public comment, we will close public comment. Uh Madam Chair, we have two more hands raised in chambers. Oh, wonderful. Please get up to the podium and then make sure you fill out a comment card once you're done. Hi, my name is Ruth Angel and I live up in Granite Ridge. And um I was concerned when I first saw it was a goal and and goal typically means intent. And then when I looked that they wanted to do a zoning change for um um to higher density housing, I thought about a couple things. One of them I thought about was the traffic at Los Besus in McCarron, North McCarron. It's horrible. So we're talking about just 65 homes. Let's just husband wife 130. So just that impact on that intersection, how that goes over with the city, I don't know how that works, but I know that that's a dangerous intersection for what's there. The next thing I thought about was water and sewer, which I'm not opposed to building up there, but I think it, like the gentleman before me said, that should be consistent with the housing up there, threecar garages and that sort of thing. And I know that the city council and the planning commission is all for, you know, highdensity housing and getting people in homes, but it has to be consistent with the area up there. I'm also kind of worried about ingress and egress because the traffic up there with the schools. We've got two schools on Rob Drive. We have the high school, we have the uh elementary school right there, and they have little flags that they have to cross the street with so people can see them. Um I just have a lot of questions. I'd like to know, and it's been my experience, that a lot of these things change uh when it's in the process, especially when they say intent and goal. I'd like to see what that means. And um is there is there another option? I mean, I kind of looked up Rubicon uh group to see had they built highdensity houses before. Yes, they have. And so that's my concern that it might go that way. Thank you. Thank you. Was there one more person interested in giving public comment at this time? There was, but she said she's going to wait for the item to be presented first. There's other hands. Okay, please come forward. I have I have similar comments to the first gentleman who's up here. I just I live on Moose Drive. Uh, sir, can you state your name for the record? Oh, my name is Alan Orcut. Uh, I live on Moose Ridge Drive. Uh, what else do I need to know? All right. Yeah, my concern is same about housing density up there on the on the new development. I did notice that even if our Moose Ridge Drive development was done in a S SF8 uh zone that uh it the houses weren't that size. there's a fewer number of houses per acre than were would be allowed in a SF8. So I was concerned. I looked I saw that there was such a thing as a SF5 for instance which I think is actually pretty closer to what we are what our development is. And uh you know I'm I understand the desire to not have that new development at SF3 because it's probably impractical for the developer to build the houses on, you know, three to an acre and sell them today. But I think that the SF5 would make it much more like what we have already. And uh I think that that also would prevent there from being the crowding that we're a little concerned about of of traffic leaving the new development coming down Moose Ridge, which I think is the only exit out of that. I don't think there's going to be any other. So that's uh that is just my concerns. Thank you. Great. Could you please fill out a comment card? Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Steve Nifler. I live on um Fox Trail and I'd just like to say that several years ago um zoning was changed to SF3 and that is very consistent with what is in the neighborhood and I see no reason to change it to high density. If it's if it's FSF3, I don't think any one would mind that. But there's there's just not the the road infrastructure and for high density housing and I would like to agree with everyone that's come up here so far. So, thank you. Could you please fill out a comment card? Thank and anybody wishing to give public comment on the item. We will also discuss this under a specific agenda. Um my name is Kelsey Brown. We live off of Fox Trail on Sandalwood. Um, and I have some serious concerns about the safety of bringing that much traffic in. I know the planning um, letter that was sent out said 60 to 65 homes. With the SF8, I mean, you're really looking at 128 if they only develop those 16 acres. That's 230 cars on a daily average going up to that small area. Our neighborhood was not built with roads intended for that. Um we have major fire issues up there. So you have to look at you know how people get in and out of the neighborhood there. Um we have some intersections um as was stated Lasus and McCarron um Bowmont and Avanita. Um you look at Rob Drive we've had uh kids hit. We've had um some very fatal tragic accidents right there at Bowmont and Avanita. So when you look at bringing that much traffic in, not only are we changing our quality of life in this neighborhood where we all bought for this quality of life where we have outdoor trails, all of the off-road access for Peine comes from that area. There are a lot of new dirt bikers and mountain bikers. Um McQueen has their mountain biking club that rides up there. So, there's a lot of concern with going that dense in that housing as far as safety that we'd really like to see addressed when it comes to this. So, um yeah, I think I just second everything that's been said. Thank you guys. Please fill out a comment card. Ma'am, thank you. Anyone else wishing to give public comment at this time? All right, seeing none, we Close public comment. Now we're moving on to something um that only happens once per year and that's the election of officers for the planning commission. No, we're doing the minutes. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. We need approval of the minutes from the June 5th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Commissioner will move to approve. Commissioner Ber second. All in favor? I. Looks like it passes unanimously. Now, we'll move to item number five, which is election of officers. I want to welcome our newest planning commissioner, Commissioner Tina Don Patini. Um, I also want to point out that she's been in the planning commission for a full 12 minutes. Um, and and ask if she feels comfortable at this time making a decision on election of officers. This is an item for possible action. Um, so perhaps it might be us all to postpone this one or two meetings as she gets her feet wet on this board. I appreciate the opportunity. I'm comfortable moving forward. Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. So, I will take uh we will do the chair nominations first. Anybody like to make a nomination? Commissioner Sarah, for the record, uh, I would recommend the reelection of Chair Carrie Romire to serve a full one-year term as chair of the Reno Planning Commission, completing the natural arc of leadership she began when stepping into the role following the prior chair's midterm resignation six months ago. Commissioner Valto, I'd like to recommend Commission nominate Commissioner Jockan to serve as chair. Any other nominations? This is just for chair. Is that correct? Just for chair, correct? Um Mike, do we do this as an individual vote? First once for I guess me and then once for commissioner Jockman. I'm going to defer that over to legal to let them chime in on that. Yes, that's how how you would take competing nominations. Okay. Um, we will start with the nomination for Commissioner Jockman as chair of the Rena Planning Commission. We'll do a roll call vote. Gentini. Oh, I'm sorry. Wait. I think there was a request for discussion. So, I would open it for discussion. Does any of the commission wish to discuss this? Absolutely. Uh, Commissioner Ber, for the record, I I have a question or two happy to pose to the two candidates before us. Um, not sure who would go first, but whoever would like to take it. Uh, for both candidates, what qualities do you believe are most essential in a chair when contentious or deeply emotional cases are before us, especially when the public feels unheard or staff recommendations might be questioned? Commissioner Jackman, thank you for the question. I'm sorry. Point of order. Is is this question and answer time? I don't I don't know if this is the appropriate venue to be putting commissioners to ask questions. I'm not sure from the other discussion is different. I guess we could reframe that. This was already questioned of protocol and and yes, we're allowed to have discussion on these matters. Sorry, Commissioner to chime in. I understand discussion, but the idea of turning this into a job interview is quite troubling for me. I I think that we have a track record of the commissioners and I think it's more appropriate to take a vote. Context is key. Commissioner Ber for the record and it's probably important for the general public and this body especially with the new commissioner before us to actually Sure. I'll just I'll just chime in. I think that um I am best suited to uh given the the vision that has been on this planning commission for the greater half of a year, I am uh best suited to uh steer the planning commission in the right direction with regard to uh bringing some more unity to this commission. Thank you. I'll follow up and say unity is important and I think that so is cohesive decision making and uh I've been in the role for six months. I also have 20 years of planning land use experience as well as um both academic and being on the other side of the disk presenting projects and getting applicants and development to this community. So I would say have a long history of understanding the zoning code, the ordinances, the policies in place, and from the local level all the way up to a federal administration. So I would really appreciate the opportunity to actually be appointed for the full one-year term. Great. Um, if I may, uh, chair, I'd like just a quick follow up on that since you both touched on some key things. Um when when do you what is your approach to collaborative leadership and how do you manage when consensus is difficult but necessary? Well, I guess since I went last in the last question, I will say um yes, I didn't anticipate having Q&A, but I think it's important for our fellow commissioners to understand that collaboration is the name of the game in this space. land use decisions are an execution of the master plan vision for our city as well as changing strategic plans. Things like climate goals and economic development needs and workforce and balanced housing. Um so it's very important to understand that there are multiple stakeholders involved in every decision we make and that these decisions are quite weighty. Um that they we don't look at them any of them as small decisions. They affect people, they affect our community and they affect our economy. So if we aren't working together, then we're really failing to do the city justice. So to that end, I will say that um when I chose to take this position, I did so with the intent on focusing solely on the job, focusing on making the findings, nothing more and nothing less. And I think that's absolutely imperative to have on this body as it would be anywhere. um to stick to the job. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone else? All right. Well, I suppose we should go to the roll call vote. Um I need a motion first. Uh Commissioner Belto, I will move to approve appoint Commissioner as the chair. Uh, Commissioner Williams, I'll second that. Okay. So, we'll do one by one. Okay. All right. Uh, Tina Grantini. Commissionerini, I approve. Commissioner, can you turn her mic up? Can you Sorry. Can you bring the mic closer to you so I can hear Commissioner Confy and TD Sorry, I approve uh Commissioner Jockman as chair. Thank you. Hang on. I have to type all this stuff. Just one second. Okay. Um Bera, no. Delvr, no. I'm sorry I couldn't hear you. No. Thank you. Um, David Jockman. Yes. Alex Felto, yes. Jacob Williams, yes. Carrie Roier, no. The vote passes uh four to three. All right. Well, I suppose we can hand the gavvel over to commissioner chair document and then he can lead the next vote. Okay. Uh, commissioners for uh, the next position is for vice chair. Commissioner Belto, I nominate Commissioner Williams for vice chair. Commissioner Roar Meer nominating Commissioner Delvr for vice chair. Any further motions? Commissioner Belto, I move to appoint Commissioner Williams as the vice chair. Commissioner Gonini. I second. Okay. Uh Madam Chair, can we please do a roll call vote? Okay. Carrie Roire, no. Uh, Tina Confantini, yes. Manny Bera, no. Christina Delviar, no. David Jockan, yes. Alex Felto, yes. Jacob Williams. Yes. Motion passes four to three. Can we take a break and then we can move everybody? You don't want to move. Okay. You want to move? No. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, what would you prefer? Uh, Madam Clerk, I apologize. No, you're fine. Just the way you are. If you want to stay that way, I'm happy with that. Okay, moving into the next agenda item. Uh we have public hearings. We will take these in order. Uh starting with 6.1. Do we have a staff report for this item? Good evening, commissioners. Uh Grace McAdin, senior management analysts. I'll wait for Oh, there it is. I'm presenting for case number LDC25-000067, the Stone Village condition amendment. Subject site is located south of PAR generally and north of the University Park neighborhood. Um, this is a condition amendment to amend condition number one of an old case LDC22-000016 that was a major site plan review for an apartment complex on the site that is highlighted. This condition amendment would allow for more parking and less open space and we'll get into that. So key issues we looked at with this request were protection of sensitive areas, open space and parking. So here's the slide that kind of shows a layout of what was originally proposed and then with this amendment. Um so it would result in an increase of parking from 379 parking spaces to 487. Um what the developer found um through constructing the apartment was that the market demanded for more parking. The closest bus station is a little over a mile away. You have to go through some slopes um some intermittent sidewalk and cross a railroad track. So it's not ideal. So most of their occupants are going to be driving. Um and the street is fairly crowded. There's a number of apartment complexes already in this area. Um and then they would because they're adding parking, they would reduce this common landscape area from 5.2 acres to 3.2. So you can see the existing um request above and then the um current request is below. And so what this would result in is condition number one, which is generally kind of requires the applicant to be in conformance with what they propose with their application. So if anything changes more than 10% we require them to come back to this body because it's no longer what this body had approved. And so what we would change it to is we would add exhibit C in the amendment so that it would um effectively put in that new site plan as as what they're going to be um building with this review. Staff also um had to add condition number 12. um they're increasing the grading close to residential, which is fine. Our code does allow for that. Um but you do have to get the written consent of the neighboring owners. And so um through discussion with the developer, they can either get that written consent or they have to modify their request to meet exhibit E so that this body knows if they don't get that written written um uh permission, then we know exactly what will be built. So, it's either written permission to do what's proposed or they can get um meet exhibit E. Um so, through this uh analysis, they are still exceeding their minimum landscape requirements. They're still exceeding their open space requirements. They're adding parking um that's still in conformance with RMC. And so, if this was proposed with the original development, staff would have supported it um as presented today. So, it does meet all the findings. And the recommended motion is on your screen. I'm available for questions and the applicant is here with a presentation as well. I'm not sure. Thank you. There you go. Uh I'm Will Adler. I'm here uh presenting on behalf of Alco Construction. Uh I'm the principal and founder of Silver State Government Relations. Uh but for I want to walk through the Stone Village Apartments just because it's a very unique site actually and we can kind of go through the thought process and why we end up with these new ratios today. Uh as you can see the site is unique. It is actually on top of this hillside and it is uh by definition as infill as infill can be. Uh it is actually going for that higher density in a in a unique location. The site though is is hard to to you know quantify but you can really see in this overview that there's a nice gap there that that brown space that isn't built right now uh is a transmission line right so we we have to in all ways build around this whole easement issue of Envy Energy and the transmission line. So it is 11.46 46 acre lot, but as you'll see, we can only really build on the front six acres of that and then usable space and what's on the back end uh on the south part is what we're talking about today. So again looking at the GIS map uh the early construction uh as pl as as the planning staff said uh we could have implemented additional planning at that uh park parking planned into that time because we did exceed the open space and uh vacant space available because as you can see the other structures do end right at that line to uh not be encroached by the e uh easement for the transmission line. Uh the overview of the parking site, like we said, the existing plan that's in place and unchanged today is in white. Uh and the gray is the expansion of the parking at the south end of the parcel. Again, um maybe just on this one, it's it's it's easier to see here that it is a very north south looking property. There's only the two entrances on the north end, and this will be sort of a ring road that goes down to provide extra parking inside the the the gray area. This actually came about with a new change of ownership. The property has a a bit of a new vision. They do want to see more parking inside because the new owner identified there was some street parking going on and they they wanted to actually add more parking to the site to make sure people could feel secure and have have their parking on on property with them. But again, to avoid the the transmission line you can kind of see is these dark lines that go horizontally across. We could not bring further housing down. It was just simply a no-go. But because these are flat stacked developments or parking, it is doable under these uh transmission lines. So these again these black lines crossing the the horizon here. Uh we are keeping the the native space that was requested by staff previously. Uh it is a nice rocky outcropping. You can see there is in the center of this photo. So we we're preserving that and not touching that at all. But as you can see, the development does have an increase in parking requests. Whereas the south end, we'll start at this long horizontal piece is against this fixed fence line with the the property owners right there. There's no access to this lot from the fence line today. There's no access to hiking trails. There's no break in the fence line. So, we want to keep that consistency with the parking layout that you see there. Uh we'll get into it the landscaping photo, but today we do keep that nice, you know, 20 to 40 foot barrier. And then as the fence line is on the south end here, we're actually lowering the the parking level to at the highest be no more than 4 feet above the fence line's base. Right? So the base of the fence line, the parking will start there. You won't see a lot of headlights. There won't be a lot of encro for uh the housing there. And we'll we'll get into it with the landscaping. We do plan on blocking with the double road trees. Uh but to go to the left side of the photo or the north end of the parking, the expansion on what is the west side or the left side of the photo here has this roundabout looking thing to the left that actually has no housing and no units around it. Actually, on both sides of that, it is simply an emergency turnaround lane for fire access. There is no adjacent property owner. That's just the end of the development that that had to be there for the roundabout. Uh again, this is the native space we're sort of preserving there. And on the right, you can see these transmission lines. Uh they they are quite substantial and large. So it is good that we did keep away from the south end there, but to keep the native space intact, we could potentially fence it. We could maybe add some more grass elements, but there are some good landscaping there today. And with this, we're we're keeping that intact. Um to get a little bit more detailed in the amendment, uh the area grading plan. Again, the the left side will be a little bit higher, but there is no back fence line. there's no residents, there's no neighbors to the immediate uh what would be west there uh on the on the northern part. But on the south end, again, we are trying to keep the step back intact and the grading is actually no special needs uh required. We have good zoning, good distance and good grading there. But I just want to point out everything is on this hillside and if you're looking left or west, you're all sloping downhill. So the right side of the parking will be a slightly graded higher and the flow will go naturally down this wash that already exists there to a retention pond and drainage pond that was already installed by the the previous development as we have our own kind of retention pond for for the rest of the imperous space above that. Again uh just to sort of quantify it the AAA or the double A is the west side or the the north piece of it. um as you can see or actually in reverse. Uh yeah, so the the the section AA is actually the southern piece here. So just to sort of put it in quantified status, we already have the first white parking above that. So the middle parking here is the new gray expansion area. We wanted to show that there is a good 40 feet of separation between that that parking and um and the homeowners to the immediate south. Uh we're doing a double row of trees, one of deciduous trees and one conifers, and you sort of double stack those and it makes a nice sort of visual screen effect uh for the existing uh homeowners. You can also see we did put in a little transmission line pole there to show that that really is unavailable space for anything but flat development like these parking developments. Uh we aren't putting in uh covers or or uh parking uh uh the steel structures on top of the parking garage. We're not doing that uh on this side just because again that would add another visual layer above the current fence line. So we want to be mindful of that and make sure the neighbors uh don't have to see the parking if they don't want to. So the section BBB is the north and sort of west side of the parking and you can see the the shadowy effect of the last uh piece of the construction of the development for Stone Village is actually right there. We are coming into alignment with that existing wall that we have today and we're going to continue that feature on. It's a stone wall that goes to that that housing development line. We're going to continue that south and bring that in to to screen the parking that is there. Again, there's no neighbors over that fence line, but we are adding a row of deciduous trees or evergreens to the south end to do a buffer there as well. As staff said, it's not quite the 20 ft setback for the grading there. It's about 17.3, but it is sufficient if you if you look at the site and the realities of the lack of a neighbor to the left. Uh just looking at the southern boundary. Again, here's the fence line with the homeowners as a continual fence line. There's no breaks to it. So, we want to kind of keep that theme and make sure there's no encroachment to their properties. So, again, we're going to do a double line of trees right here. We're going to keep that 40 foot step back and uh keep those visual uh disturbances down by lowering the dirt from where you see today about probably three or four feet lower to make sure again it's no higher than four feet from the bottom of the fence line. Uh this is standing in that roundabout circle that I was speaking of. So today these are construction trailers on site that are doing the the finishing of the buildout. That's the end of the development in the last the stone village housing that's still framed out in wood there. But as I said, we'll be adding that wall and continuing it across and lowering that dirt level again to make sure we tuck the parking in right there. But there is no backyard neighbor on this account. We'll probably fence it again just to keep it visually secure and and nice looking, but not not a lot of neighborhood concern on that one in particular. To end, we did just bring up our uh landscaping plan. As I said, on the south end, we do have a double buffer row. We do have evergreen trees with the deciduous trees there. Uh and it adds that, you know, layer of screening. This the road kind of inroads, outros you see kind of on the left and the right again, those are for Envy Energy support. We have we have large transmission lines here and they actually service them by going up and down the hillside there. So, we're planning to have these ingress egress in and outs there, but that does not connect to the community on either side. That isn't a trail that that reconnects it. We are we're keeping that separation barrier between the existing homeowners on the south end. And then again, like I said, on the on the north and west side, we do have that that parking development and plan on lowering it a little bit, having that wall continued. That's that dark black line on the left. And then we do have uh a row of evergreen trees planned for uh screening that as well. That is all uh the presentation I have prepared for you today. If there's any more technical questions, we do have some of the engineering team to answer. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh madame clerk, do we have any public comment on this item? Let's see. I did receive one public comment that was forwarded to the planning commission and was entered as part of the record. I did not receive any request to speak forms for this item. She wanted to we have one comment in chambers. Please step up and state your name for the record. My name is Margie Kuster and I reside in one of those houses immediately to the south of this development. when it was originally approved. Unfortunately, I was in California taking care of my sick mother, so I wasn't able to attend the meeting at that time. I did receive the postcard. I went ahead and called our supervisor at the time to find out if there was going to be construction immediately behind my home. They informed me that no, that there was an easement of 75 ft on either side of the power lines that would not be encroached upon. So when I saw that this recent postcard came to the house, I tried looking it up. I don't know how the numbering is done, but I couldn't access anything. So I was planning on coming to the meeting. From what I see here, this is going to be immediately up to my fence. In all due respect, I understand that this project has been sold and and revitalized from another builder, but they have not been acting in good faith up to this point. Um, initially there was a cross fence placed into the back of my fence and they put um lights with alarms on it and they were going off when we would walk inside our homes. Both me and my neighbor had the same problem. And it's 25 ft from my bedroom window. And having an alarm and a light shining brightly into your bedroom is very disturbing, especially since these went up when there was not a speck of wood, a trailer, anything out there. It was just dirt. I had to call and talk with code enforcement and they finally got the lights turned off. We put up with hearing to the beep beep beep of backing of trucks. They're not supposed to work on Sundays. This last Sunday there were contractors up there making noise. So, I understand that they say that this is going to be below grade. Frankly, I don't believe it because th this whole project sits above where my house is. You can see the three stories from the street in front of my house. We've dealt with noise and dust and everything else. And now I see this that they're wanting to put the parking right up next to my fence. There's a lot of noise that happens when you have apartments and having it that close was not what we were told was going to happen. We were assured that it wouldn't happen. So, I'm pretty upset that this is what's being suggested and what potentially could be approved. Thank you. Can you turn in your Do we have any more public comment in chambers? Hearing none, we will now move to disclosures. Uh, starting with Commissioner Valto. Commissioner Valto, no. Commissioner Williams, no disclosures. Also, Commissioner Gantini, no disclosures. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Commissioner Dear, uh, familiar with the site. Commissioner Vera familiar with the site and read and reviewed material and public uh feedback by email. Commissioner same. Okay, we will now move into questions for the applicant and staff. I have a question. Please proceed. Uh, Commissioner Roier. Yes. May I have a question for staff, please? Hi, Grace. Um, I just wanted to ask, you know, uh, it's unusual to get a request for more parking or i.e. more paving versus less vegetation. Usually with over parking, there's a requirement to do more landscaping. Um, can you tell me how this complies with AB96, the new urban heat master planning effort in our city? Seems like this would add to that issue. Yeah, so this is kind of a um competing interest. When we were uh reviewing these cases, it doesn't meet um currently in code, we have a if they exceed 150% of their parking, then they have to um increase their landscape area. They don't meet the 150%. they do have to increase the landscaping per 12 stalls. They still have to um add trees for that. Um so, so that's kind of why they don't have to they don't meet that 150% threshold. And what are they what are what is the city going to do about the urban heat effect? I always am concerned when I see that we're going over parking. It seems like the wrong direction for addressing urban heat. Yeah. Um so for the assembly bill that just passed um that would require that's requiring a master plan amendment that has not yet gone into effect. I think we have about a year to do that. Um and so that will be a process we will um take on for the urban heat island and um in the master plan. So no mitigations being expected of people at that time at this time then? Not specific to that assembly bill. Um, like I said, we do have thresholds for um, additional landscaping if they meet certain thresholds, but because we would have approved this if it was introduced first. I know it feels a little funky because we're adding more pavement at this stage. Um, but if this was presented first, they're exceeding their landscaping. They're exceeding all of their minimum requirements. Um, and so it still, you know, would have been supported at that time. Um, and then they still do have the mitigation with the one tree for every 12 spaces. So that does kind of help with um some of the the shade. Thank you. Got one. Commissioner Williams. Hi. Um who would be best to address the resident's concern about that setback and the promise about the 75 ft? Is that under the purview of the city? Does that exist? Yes. Well, NV Energy and the city um with the typically um with those easements, it's construction and so since parking um they can still access those lines, that's usually one of their concerns. Um it's it usually falls within an allowable construction material underneath those easements. And so um there won't be any vertical construction under you know that close to to the neighbors homes but the flat work can be done under those construction lines within that easement. So just to confirm so basically they have rights to access that land. It's just the vertical would be restricted by the typically I I'm not sure exactly the language in that easement. They they do have to get approval through Envy Energy. Um, typically with these transmission line easements, they can do flat work as long as NV Energy can access those lines. Okay. So, even if it was dirt, they would still have access to it, per se. NV Energy, um, I mean, in general, even the this easement specific to NV Energy because it's a transmission line. Okay. Correct. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Ber. Yeah, Commissioner for the record. Hi, Grace. Just in simple terms, what's the need for the additional parking? Sure. Um and I can also defer to the applicant um from their application materials um with the new ownership and then as they've been building these um apartments they found that they do need more parking because the street parking is often taken up um and then they did want to offer that onsite for their residents and so it was just kind of a market need that they saw. Do you know how maybe it's for the applicant, how do you measure that need? Because we had a couple cases before us recently where we face a similar situation. Uh Will Adler for the record. Um the the new as the new ownership took over, they actually identified the area. I'm not sure if we could pull up the the larger map. Uh but looking at where you are is a little easier. Specifically uh on this map you can kind of identify that in the top right corner there is actually the the jail and the detention center and the the traffic flow throughout the area is actually pretty significant. But today and now the the exterior of the building uh is is a pretty busy street. Right. So the the level of development on the front half or the north end is significant because we we tried to stack all the the vertical development there and a couple uh amendments were already made to the plan. Additionally, there was three stories of development on the front end that that was asked to be reduced to two stories to sort of blend out with the neighborhood. But again, looking at the neighborhood, several people already use the parking across the street and several of those uh developments already have overflow parking sort of parking on this development side of the street as well. So, just looking at the realities of the neighborhood around us, there's multif family housing again straight across the street and to the right, it just seems to be parking is an issue in the area to date. So to get ahead of that, to make sure we are doing what's right for the development that's here, we do want people to say, you know, I want to park in my development, not on the street and sort of clogging up for the rest of the neighborhood because it it it is becoming a denser area. So it, you know, leaving it to have uh Guarddale Avenue be the parking lot is not really appropriate at this time. But, you know, it it is a thought that flat stack or or non-vertical development is allowed under these uh uh easements with Envy Energy. We've received approval through the transmission easement agreement because again we have those access routes sort of going in and out of the parking uh and and they'll be able to to uh reach those lines. Some other thoughts are that we do have that native space in the middle that is un undeveloped and underproduced but we did where possible add trees to that. We did try and add some urban heat uh urban heat reducing elements. Uh but yeah, we added a few extra trees I think in fact on the south end uh to try and screen that. So I I do want to you know stay we we did try and do this in mind of of the re region and the the residents in the area. Great. Just a quick followup. Thank you so much. Uh what were those heat urban reducing elements that you implemented that you referred to? Uh extra trees making sure you know we did a double screen of trees, not just one. We wanted to make sure we we did actually have um you know landscaping where possible before sort of an open space with the track. We we did say hey if there's more asphalt there should be more leaf cover too. So great. Thank you. Thank you. There is no additional public comment after that item. Commissioners any commissioner Delvier? Uh so and actually this is for the applicant. Sorry. Um I just wanted to address actually to her question. I'm just trying to figure out like what the distance is between her house or those houses and where the parking lot actually starts. So um we'll add for the record just in case. Uh as you can see there's sort of the deciduous tree and the conifer tree and you have your two arrows on the top of AA. It is a 40 foot distance between you know the first bumper of that car or the edge of of the parking lot of the curbage to the fence line and then we do have another uh variance of 26 feet between the first tree line and the second tree line and the fence line. We did try and stack it uh with a good bit of distance there. But we are again trying to lower the fill and and get it below the you know if we left at the current parking level you see on the left the headlights would be very much in align with the top of the fence line. So we are lowering it down making sure at the highest it is you know no more than 4 feet from the bottom of the fence line and that'll be at the very north end and then sloping down where it'll be lower because it all drains that way kind of thing. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from commissioners? Um, I had a question. Please proceed. Uh, yes. I wanted to ask I suppose um staff about what is the RTC service looking like up there and if there had been a request to do any shaded parking on that side. I know they placed it in part of the project but not here. Um, the closest uh are you talking about flex ride or the closest transit stop? So, the closest transit stop is um a little over a mile away. Um you kind of have to go down Gardella, cross the railroad tracks, and then get to Virginia. Um I do think that this I think this area is actually outside of Flex Ride because there is a transit stop nearby. Um but I'm I'm not positive on that one. But the transit stops a little over a mile away. Okay. And was there any consideration for shading on that additional parking? Um well, a couple things. One to do with that easement. I'm not sure if the um shaded parking would comply with the um requirements in that easement language for the transmission line. Um and so no. Could we extend that question to the applicant please? Hello, Will Adler for the record. Uh, again, we did look at shading or doing car park sort of uh coverage on that. The other issue with that is a they're visible above the fence line at all times whether there's a car there or not. And B, there there would be additional lighting maybe under each of those. uh to minimize the lighting and sort of light pollution on the southern end to be mindful of that. We are doing the required amount of lighting but really minimizing the the light impact to that area. But again, the transmission lines being directly overhead, we did think uh it might be better not to to go for the additional shading uh parking spots just because uh that too is a consideration at this time. Okay. And um just since you're already standing there, what about ballards for lighting instead of overhead lighting? Um we do have a requirement for very specific um lighting standards in our code. Um the one of the problems with ballards is they shine up. Um and so we always want them to be shielded downward um to prevent the light spillage. So, I don't know that staff would support the ballards for lighting and unless we could get a little more specific even behind a fence. It it's just not it's not to code because it it shines up and then the um phototric plan would be different. So, they did provide a phototric plan their meeting code. I don't think that the Ballards would they would differ from from what was proposed. They just in the future that might be a nice solution for shaded parking um minimize any light spill. Thanks. Any other questions from commissioners? Hearing none, we will uh close questioning and go into deliberations. Uh Commissioner Roer on Zoom, do you have any uh comments, Chad? Yeah, I'll just say that I can't support a project at this time that would increase um over parking without some consideration for urban heat. The city really needs as the fastest heating city in the nation really needs to take this seriously and there's been a state mandate to do so. Commissioner, for the record, I would just concur with that statement. Um, I do applaud the applicant for making an effort, but it seems like it's missed the mark on this one. Uh, Commissioner Alto, I uh I'll just say I think there are some unique situ unique conditions, I don't mean conditions in the sense of the finance we have to make, but there are unique conditions surrounding this project that warrant the change uh to have additional parking. Um, I think we've already approved this project and really we should just be looking at whether this change has any uh has any benefit to the applicant. I think staff's done a good job explaining why this change is beneficial and I appreciate the specificity included in some of the exhibits they've they've provided. Um, I can make the findings and I would support the project. Commissioner Ber, for the record, I think I would just build upon that sentiment and also ask the body to consider not just the benefits to a developer, but the adverse impacts potential uh to a the surrounding residents. Sometimes that's the case, sometimes it's not, but it should be considered. And I I guess on Commissioner Belto, just to follow up, I don't think there's been any admissible evidence put into the record uh that speaks to some of the effects that are contemplated by some of the proceeding commissioners. If we're trying to make findings and look at um evidence before us, I have not heard evidence to support the conclusions that there'd be a significant heat island effect and we should be cautious about some of the things we're expected to consider when we're reaching our findings. I believe the city has always had a policy about over parking and it used to be in the master plan that over parking at 110% was considered off limits. This has been a substantial change in the direction of the city to go to the mitigation threshold of 150% over parking. Um I do think now that with the state mandate requiring analysis of urban heat effect that this is one area although we are in the interim that requires additional analysis and thought and so I will stand my uh stand my vote on this one. I I oppose it. Any other comments uh during deliberation? Commissioner Williams. Uh I should have asked how close are we to this 150% threshold? Is that something we can reass? Do you mind? Chair Williams. Yes. If if you would like, we can go back to questioning. Yeah. Do you mind? Please proceed. Okay. Grace Mackin again for the record. I don't know if it's in the staff report. I think it was pretty close. So it was about 130 something%. So it was close. 130. Thank you. I don't think it's in there. That's fine. That's a ball approximately. Hey, Grace. Grace, while you're up there, Commissioner Reser, for the record, how drastic of a change would it be if they reach the 150% threshold from what they're expected to do now at 130 um for that particular code? section. I think it ends up being a percentage. You have to increase the landscaping. Um when staff was reviewing this, again, there's um competing interests here. Um but really what we fell back on is if this were presented to start with the original case, um because they're exceeding all of their requirements, um we we would have approved it. So that that's kind of hard. There was we were lacking a nexus for how we require more landscaping if we would have approved this originally. Um, so that was how we tried to balance some of those competing policies. Commissioner Wr did some quick math and it looks like it's about 28%. 128. We will now close question and go back into deliberation. Any further comments from commissioners or would anyone like to entertain a motion? I have one more comment and then I'll um not at anymore. I think it's kind of a slippery slope here that we're trying to make determinations based on what we would have done at the time a project came in. Um the standards and the codes and the situation has changed. So I think we really have to be careful that we're only considering what we're considering at the time at which it comes in. Go ahead. Uh, Commissioner Williams, for what it's worth, my only no vote um on this board in my short time was uh the reduction in parking. So, um I'm not a fan of the reduction in parking and it's why I voted that way. Um so, you know, in one case I'm sympathetic to understanding that parking is a huge issue and it does impact quality of life. Uh I'm also sensitive to that that we're getting close to a threshold state mandate here um that uh we're all working towards which is reducing this heat. I think one of the things I was looking at is there is a very dramatic um cut in this common area space or that uh Nevada energy landscape common area between these homes that will exist once this is paved. um really disturbing that area. So, I think that's one of the things I'm kind of battling with. We got upper thresholds of, you know, possible heat and asphalt and quite the big difference in between these homes. So, anyways, that's all for me. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, so I'll say something. I was a little confused uh admittedly at the first time that I read through the staff report seemingly requesting that it was looking for more parking spaces. That's not a request that this body typically receives. Um so to me it was a question of whether or not we're comfortable with reducing that uh common landscape area. And so I believe Miss McAdan said it at one point in the presentation that that as proposed tonight that that would not be something that would typically require discretionary approval from this body. Uh but the um fact that they're making a meaningful modification to a condition of a project that was previously approved is enough for me to be comfortable with this proceeding. So any other comments from commissioners? Uh, Commissioner Delvr, um, I I understand all the different points of view. I live in Ward 4. I recognize the parking issue, no doubt. I also am um, you know, familiar with the direction that we want to go in and the um, heat issue we're having in our city. Just curious, have did you consider not having that many parking spots added? Like why that number? And I'm just curious. Um Will Adler, for the record, I I'm I'm not the owner of the property obviously, but I I I did ask similar questions myself and I I do want to put some visualization under this. If you're under an Envy Energy transmission line, there is no vegetation to date. uh there there is nothing but bare dirt and is scraped clean. So the the albido effect or the heat there stood under it today is quite significant as is right. So I I do think adding some vegetation under that and having the maintenance of trees and having that might actually do a buffer effect of what's actually going on today. But uh the the amount of parking was asked for said you know what what's the vision of this property today? The vision is going to ultimately have a gated entrance at the front end. And the idea of having extra parking for visitors, for guests, for for additional folks is not compatible with actually having that that new front entrance. We're going to apply for that I believe in a week that might be in front of you again to have have a the gated entrance in the front, but that would create this idea of, you know, you need additional parking for those who are inside and what's going to happen when you have a guest visit. You want to be able to have them visit there. Uh not necessarily, you know, eat up the parking on the outside, but as you said, if if you drive the streets today or especially at night, there's a lot of street parking today and there does seem to be an insufficient number of parking out there. So, I agreed with the the owner's vision saying, you know, let's let's tackle this in a responsible way. Let's use the the ability to build flat stack underneath these lines and actually, you know, create a better resource for those who want to live here. So, I I I I see the vision. I kind of agree with it. So, thank you and apologies for kind of opening up questions again. Uh chair, would you entertain a motion? Please proceed. Uh the matter of case number LDC25-000067 uh based upon compliance to the applicable findings, I move to approve the condition modification subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings. Commissioner Jockman, I'll second the motion. Uh, Madame Clerk, would you please conduct a roll call vote for this? Yes. Manny Bera, no. Cannot make the findings. Uh, specifically consistency with Reno master plan 1A and master site plan review A. Okay. David Jockman. Hi. Yes. Carrie Roire. Yeah. Alex Felto, yes. Jacob Williams, yes. And Tina Goffini, yes. And Christina Delvier, yes. Okay, the motion passes 5 to two. That concludes item 6.1. We will now move on to 6.2. And uh for this item uh would any commissioners be interested in entertaining an expedited motion on this item? Commissioner reserve for the record. Sure. I'll second that. Are there any objections across the commission? Okay. Uh we will uh move to disclosures for 6.2. Uh starting with uh Commissioner Valto. Uh Commissioner Alto. No disclosures. Commissioner Williams read the provided material. Commissioner Gianini, no disclosures. Commissioner Devr read and reviewed the information. Commissioner Vera familiar with the site. Review provided materials. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Commissioner Murmire, no disclosures. Okay, we will now entertain a motion. Commissioner Delviard, do we need to open public comment? Public comment. I apologize. Okay. We did not receive any public comment for this item. Um, we did not receive any request to speak forms and I don't believe anybody is on Zoom with their hand up. Thank you, Madam Clerk. My apologies. We will now entertain any motions. I will make a motion if somebody can put it on the screen for me. Thank you. Based on compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit for LDC 250062 [Music] subject to the conditions lifted listed in the staff report. Commissioner Valt second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We will now move on to item 6.3, Moose Ridge zoning map amendment, and we will begin with a staff presentation. Good evening, members of the commission. For the record, Leah Picotti. I'm an associate planner with the city of Reno development services and this evening I am presenting an application for a zoning map amendment for Moose Ridge. The subject site that we're looking at tonight is approximately 42 acres and tonight's rec. It's uh just north of Somerset in uh west north Reno, north of uh northwest of McQueen High, north of the I80. So the request that we're looking at tonight is a zoning map amendment from single family residential three units per acre to single family residential eight units per acre. And this is what that looks like on your screen right now. And as you can see, there is existing SF3, SF5, and SF8, as well as parks, greenways, and open space around this parcel. Um, to the north of the parcel is Wo County zoning. Um, so it doesn't show up on our map there, but it is a large lot residential zoning for Wo County as well. Key issues that we looked at in the zoning map request were compatibility with surrounding zoning and uses and conformance with the master plan land use designation of single family residential. Um I didn't include a slide on this but I want to talk a little bit about the background of this particular site and these sites and kind of how they ended up with the zoning that they have now. So the site that we're looking at, this SF3 site was part of Wo County. It was annexed into the city in approximately 2005. At that time, the Wo County zoning uh was um uh was the same as our large lot residential 2.5 acre minimum. So when it came over for a request for annexation at that same time they did a zoning map amendment to SF15 and that's a little bit confusing for people who aren't familiar with zoning because SF15 seems a lot different than SF3 but actually the zoning for SF15 was single family residential 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. When we updated Reno Municipal Code Title 18 in 2021, we changed that to be um more in conformance with others uh with other districts and how they zone things. So SF3 is three units per acre, which essentially equals out to 15,000 square foot lots. So, it went from SF-15 to SF3 in 2021, but essentially what was allowed there did not change. Um, similar things occurred with the zoning in in the subdivision right below with that SF8. I've had an inquiry today um regarding how that ended up at SF8 and it was pretty much the same thing. annexed into the city under large law residential went through a zone change became SF3 and then or SF-15 and then or no I'm sorry that became SF6 which would have been 6,000 square foot lots and then when we updated the code it became SF8 which requires six or 7,000 square foot lots depending upon if it's interior or exterior. So I I know that that's very confusing how those zones have changed, but essentially what is allowed on those zoning districts hasn't changed in the last 20 years. The zone changed when we updated code. All right. So again, what we looked at was compatibility with the surrounding zoning and conformance with the master plan. So here you can see the master plan land use designations. Everything that you see in yellow on your screen is single family residential land use designation and everything you see in green is that parks, greenways, and open space. Uh the proposed SF8 zoning does conform to the single family residential uh land use designation under the master plan. Then looking at the development standards here, um there are some differences between SF3 and SF8 uh namely the setbacks, right? Uh building height stays the same. Building area maximum coverage stays the same. The minimum lot area does change from the 15,000 square feet to the seven or six depending on interior exterior. And same with the lot width. So 80 feet lot width under SF3. Now we're looking at 70 or 60 under SF8. So the zoning map amendments are on the board. Uh the zoning map amendment findings are on the board. Does it conform to state law? Yes, it sure does. And does it conform to that single family land use designation? Yes, it sure does. Um, a couple of other things that I want to mention because I've uh heard from the public here just in the last couple of days. When I submitted my staff report two weeks ago, we didn't have any public comment or maybe one on this project and now I have um a few. So, I've heard a lot about traffic and I've heard a lot about density and I've heard a lot about those things. So under state law, uh a property can be subdivided into four parcels without having to go through subdivision procedures. Okay? Anything more than four has to go through subdivision procedures. We have to install infrastructure and roads and utilities and all of those things. So we are looking at a tenative map coming forward and when that tenative map comes forward we'll have a better idea of what we're looking at in terms of development. Furthermore, this particular site is steep slopes and it's going to require quite a bit of grading. I'm assuming there's going to be hillside development standards which in turn reduce the allowed density. So for anybody who's thinking, well, they could probably get the 65 homes under that SF3 right now. Maybe, but maybe not. We need to look at the slope calculations because hillside density, depending upon what the slopes are, reduces the density, the allowed density. So, that is the direction the applicant is going. Also, because we have hillside development and because we're going to have mass grading, we're going to have future entitlements on this property. So, not only are we going to have to see a tenative map, but we're going to end up with a major site plan review, which will all come back before this body. And at that time we will look at things like traffic mitigation and all of those kind of development related aspects will be reviewed at that time. Right now today we're just looking at the zoning just straight zoning findings are on here. And when it comes down to um conforming to the master plan yes conforms to state law yes. Is it reasonably compatible with the surrounding development? the SF8 zone is compatible with the SF8 zone that's directly to the south of it and the SF3 and the SF5. Um, again, I I just I pointed this out before, but compatibility is not that two things are exactly the same. Compatibility is that they can coexist without conflict. So, can the SF3 zone occur here? Staff finds that it can. That concludes my presentation. The recommended motion is on the board and the applicant is here to give a presentation as well. Thank you. Good evening. Uh Derek Wilson with Rubicon Design Group. Uh thanks very much for having us here. Uh Leah has done a fantastic job of presenting everything. So uh I will do my best to not uh repeat too much and not waste people's time. Uh so that's a subject parcel. uh north end of Moose Rich Drive. Um so in my discussion with the public uh it's it's become obvious that it's important to point out what this is not. It's not a dense development on 42 acres. It's it's a zone change on 42 acres. Uh we anticipate uh and I use the words anticipate and proposed uh because we're still working on the plan. Uh we're not at that stage yet to present a site plan. We're at a a zoning uh discussion. Um but our our expectation based on engineering expertise uh is that the southern uh roughly 16 acres is developable and the remaining roughly 26 acres will just remain as open space. We're not going to use it. It isn't really feasible to use it. As Leah pointed out, it's it's steep and has some restrictions. Uh we anticipate 60 to 65 houses is what we can reasonably fit in that 16 acre area. Uh so this is the formal request. It's a zone change uh to SF8. Um and again Lee did a great job here. But uh a lot of the issues that the public have raised are are tenative map type issues. Uh th those design issues um uh traffic issues, things like that. That will that will be there'll be a public process that will go along with that tenative map uh application which we anticipate is forthcoming. So everyone will see this project again. Uh existing zoning SF3 um proposed zoning SF8. Uh here again I I have to uh briefly address uh some interaction with the public. Um uh Mr. Weaver and I Mr. Weaver spoke under public comment. We traded emails. Um I I was sorry to hear from him that he felt my my handout was misleading. Um, I could joke that this is the first time in decades of doing this that I've been accused of suppressing public input by handing out flyers, but uh that that's I'll leave that alone. But the reason that's important is because uh the project team and myself are always available for for public discussion. So, we do want to talk to the neighbors. Uh in an ideal world, everyone would be happy. We realize change is difficult. Uh but we also realize that property owners have rights and they can sometimes develop uh provided that they uh follow the rules. So, so we want people to be informed. Uh we want public interaction. So, uh uh we took the extra effort of going around the neighborhood handing out flyers uh in the hopes that people would not be blindsided, that they'd be apprised of the of the entire process, the zone change and the forthcoming tenative map. Uh so hopefully we achieve that. Again, I'm sorry Mr. Weaver uh was not satisfied. Uh but I'm happy to meet with anybody to to do the best we can to get information out there. Uh, and I I need to point out that that the flyer that was criticized, uh, it made a zoning statement that our requested SF8 matches the SF8 that's already on the zoning map. Uh, I I think that it was an attempt to read more into that than than was there. Again, those are tenative map issues that I feel were being discussed. SF8 obviously matches SF8. So, so we're asking for a zoning match. uh master plan supports our request. Uh that's a view of the site. Uh looking north from the end of Moose Ridge Drive, you can essentially see the the flattish area that we propose to develop. So I think the site is fairly obvious in engineering terms of of where you would put houses. Uh and it certainly looks to me like Moose Ridge Drive was was built with the expectation it would extend up onto that flat area at some point. Um so we are not um a standalone uh developer in this case. Uh the uh the city of Reno owns the property to the east of us. Uh and they have already worked with us uh to establish an easement uh running uh east over to the next neighborhood to the east. Uh and the goal there is uh we're working with Tomwa as well. Uh, Toma very much wants a water connection uh from our proposed project to the existing neighborhood and and that adds redundancy to the water system. Uh, it adds increased firefighting capability. It adds um improved more reliable water service to both neighborhoods to Mouser Drive and the neighborhood to the east. So, so it accomplishes something that obviously the city of Reno and Tom both want because they're working with us to to achieve this. So the easements are in place uh and and part of our tenative map design will be an emergency access road and a water line uh that follows that that yellow path shown there. Uh so as a little exercise um we've heard a lot about traffic. Uh this addresses infrastructure is is infrastructure in place to serve the project. Uh in my opinion yes uh that top rectangle shows Moose Ridge Drive roughly 33 feet of of travel area of of pavement area. pavement width. Um, just for comparison, that that lower rectangle shows West Plum Lane that handles thousands of of cars a day. I don't know the traffic numbers, but it's it's in the four figures. Um, that's nearly identical, uh, paving width on there. Um, so to say that the roads are don't exist in that neighborhood, uh, I I think is it doesn't stand up to some engineering review. Uh so zone change summary uh we're in conformance with the master plan. Um SF8 is compatible uh with the area. Uh major infrastructure is in place. Roads and utilities are already in place in the neighborhood and we're going to enhance those uh utilities with any project. Uh so anything we do there, Tommo is going to make us do that water connection. Uh so not only are is infrastructure there now, uh but we're going to enhance it with any project. Uh we've done a fair amount of uh public outreach on this project. Uh we had a neighborhood meeting with Devon Reese. Uh the project team and myself uh delivered uh information to the neighborhood um doortodoor. Uh I've done my best to respond to every call and email that that's come in. I I think I've seen all of them. Again, Lee has been good about getting me that stuff. Uh and then future tenant map, we're going to be back for another hearing before anything gets built. So that's all I have. Uh we have uh engineering staff here. We have the property owner here. Uh we're certainly available to answer any questions. Thank you. That concludes the staff and the applicant presentations. We will now go into uh public comment on this item. We have one request to speak form. Mr. David White, would you please step up? State your name for the record. You have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you for the chance to speak. My name is David White. I'm a resident of Moose Ridge. Uh it's been good to see some of my neighbors here. I would just make an appeal to consider a little bit of history. This has been tried before. It failed. One aspect of history. Another aspect of history is there has been flash flooding and mudslides in that neighborhood that I've heard of. That was before I moved there. Um I understand this about engineering and mitigating risks of all of that. I just uh don't agree that it's going to improve but probably be worse as that mountain's going to dump down on those houses. Um so I feel bad for anybody who would live in that area for that reason. The traffic I'm not convinced that there will be sufficient roadways to accommodate the increase in traffic. Uh, this has been expressed by some of my neighbors who I'm sorry could not make it tonight, but has been expressed by people who did with whom I agree. Um, I just think that's a little bit too much to add. I would humbly ask the people developing it to maybe consider not needing so much density. I've seen the SF8 development down the road. Uh that looks more like condos than the houses that are characteristic to that immediate area. Um please reconsider. Thank you. Do we have any other public comment in chamber? Please take three minutes now. Please step forward and you need to fill out a new public comment form after speaking. Please fill out a form. State your name for the record. You have three minutes. Greg Weaver. Good afternoon again, commissioners. So, as you saw, there is existing FS3. There's a little tiny slice of SF3, but it's not built maximizing the FS3 standards or excuse me, FS8. I mean, I misspoke. So there's that little sliver of FS8, but the homes that are built there are not built to that standard. They're on one/3 and one quarter acre lots with front yards, sideyards, backyards, and threec car garages. The road that's apparently as wide as plum. It goes straight down dead ends and a hard right turn and then there's these little roundabout areas that the the trash trucks can't even get through. They bump up and pop up and during the winter the landscaping gets knocked down, the concrete gets wrecked. So, it's just one little sliver of a wide road. So, you'll get to that later. But the main thing I wanted to mention is I think we're putting the cart before the horse. They're asking for a zoning change for high density zoning when they don't have a plan. 64 acres. Was it 16 acres going to be developed with 65 homes? 65 homes in 16 acres. How is that at all consistent? How does that match with what's on Moose Ridge right now? So, what they're trying to do is fasttrack a zoning change to then open up the floodgates to allow high density highdensity residential in an area that's not suited for. We've got Melton Elementary right there. The school buses don't serve that neighborhood. We're within a onem radius. Kids don't have the option to get on a bus and go to school. You know what they do? They walk. They ride bikes. And if we're going to put high density housing less than a mile from an elementary school with kids walking and riding their bikes to school and we're going to increase traffic, that's going to be a problem. It's also the one off-road access point that's legal. The Los Brris's access point is part of that zoning change. So, there's a lot of things that aren't being looked at right now. They just want you to look at this in isolation. They want you to say, "Hey, it's just a zoning change. look into it more, read into it more, ask the questions before considering that approval. Thank you. Thank you. Please step forward. State your name for the record. You have three minutes. I live on Moose Ridge Drive. I wasn't prepared to speak, so I'm going to wing this real quickly. The existing is SF3. I printed out a copy of this. I see that uh the minimum lot size um it's 15,000 square ft. The next zoning down is SF5 which is not being proposed and the minimum size is 9,000 square feet. The proposed zoning change is to SF8. A corner lot minimum is 7,000 square feet and an interior lot is 6,000 square feet. And math is not my strong suit, but I did some quick calculations. And this is well, let's let's see. First of all, my house has 10,964 square ft on the lot. And the house that is directly uh adjacent to the entrance to this project um is 11,267 together that's 11,115.5 uh excuse me if uh you add that is 22,231 divided by 2 11,115.5 would be the average size for my lot and the lot that's adjacent to this uh proposed development. So there are 16 acres that can be developed times 43,560 square ft per acre 696,960 square ft divided by the average 11,115.5 is 62.7 houses. Okay. Uh Mr. Wilson's letter says that their goal is to create 60- 65 new housing lots. Well, okay, Moose Ridge uh is uh SF8. Do you want to go to SF8? But if they're using the same square footages per lot as what is already on Moose Ridge and they're proposing to put 60 to 65 new houses that doesn't account for the streets or or common landscaping. So what they are proposing is absolutely a significantly higher density for this neighborhood, much higher traffic for streets that are purely residential. These are not thoroughs and that's a big problem. If this was a thoroughare, um it might be a little bit different. But if you go um down Aanita Danda, the lower part of Aanita Danda where it's residential, um those people put up with a lot of heavy traffic through there. Thank you. Could you please fill out a form? Thank you. Do we have any other public comment in chambers? Yes. Thank you. have public comment. Sure. Okay. Uh Madame Clerk, do we have any public comment on uh Zoom? No, we do not. Hearing none, we will uh close public comment and move into questions from the commission. Could you do disclosures, please? I apologize. Thank you. Uh we will move into disclosures. Uh Commissioner Valto. Uh Commissioner Valto. Uh no disclosures. Commissioner Williams read the provided material and familiar with the area. Commissioner Gianiantini, no disclosures. Commissioner Jockman spoke with folks opposed to the project. Commissioner WR read and received the information and familiar with the site. Commissioner Vera, same disclosures as Commissioner Wr. Commissioner Roire, same disclosures. And I have a question. When you're ready, uh, we will proceed into questions. Um, Commissioner Alto, thank you. Um, Mr. Wilson, I have some questions for you. Um, I am very hesitant to ask this question because I understand it might not relate to the findings we're required to make. Um, but I it's like stuck in my head. So, you've told us that there are 16 acres that are developable of this big parcel of land at SF5 and you've told us you think there'll be 60 to 65 houses. SF5 at 16 acres, you can get to your number. Help me understand why that doesn't work. Um, because uh well, I may pass this off to the engineer, but I'm I'm afraid I didn't get the gentleman's name correct. Mr. Harlon. Um he despite saying he's not very good at math, that was some pretty good math. Um he we do have to account for for roads and detention basins and and things like that. So uh we we may not be able to guarantee we can hit those lot sizes under SF5. Yeah. Is is my understanding. Yes. And and and we got hillside issues as well. And I kind of expected that to be the response. I'm just trying to understand um like I if you look at those 16 acres and again I understand this might not be related to the fines you're trying to make. I'm just trying to process this. If you look at these 16 acres and you would you would say that maybe there'll be like three acres that you might need to have SF8 in order to to make the project work but you might have some acres that would work theoretically under SF5. Is that kind of the explanation? Yes. Yeah. There's some easy acres and there are some tough acres. Let me add an addendum to Mr. Harlland's comment and to yours, uh, if we can't make them fit and be legal, we're not going to do it. So, if if we have to cut our our unit count, we'll cut it. Yeah. Uh, we'll go to Commissioner Roar Meyer. Next question. Thank you. Derek, I have a question. Since you were able to do a slope map, I presume you have engineers. Um, why not do like to the south where you have identified in your zone map, zoning map, um, the single family and make the rest parks green parks greenways and open space. So that includes that would ensure that there's public accessibility any trail connections any future trails that you just wish to create as part of development. Why why isolate it to just the SF request? Um I I think um we would need we need a little flexibility under the the hillside ordinance issues uh because we have some steep slopes. Uh and we want to be we we want to be free to to um move the lots away from those steeper slopes. Uh so the SF3 gives us a little more flexibility on that. uh having the whole thing zone that um however uh if I mean we're getting into difficult engineering territory here, but if if we could make our current unit count work and dedicate some of that to to to the PGOS category, we wouldn't be opposed to that. Um, but I I think if if city staff were com is comfortable with our proposed zone change, uh, I think I have to rely on their analysis. Understood. It's just disappointing since most of the development surrounding you has done that other approach. Thank you. Other questions from the commission? Commissioner Valto, go ahead. Please. Uh my question is for uh for city staff. Yes. How are you doing? Um so I I really want to focus on what we are supposed to look at. So I I want to understand we are right now at the zoning map amendment stage. How do the staff evaluate what a potential project's effects would be at this stage? Thank you, Commissioner Valto. That's an excellent question, Leah Picotti, for the record. Um, I think at this particular stage, we, you know, every zoning map amendment is different. So, it we're always looking at what are they trying to go to. I mean, if they're trying to go to industrial, then that's a whole different thing. But when we're looking at single family residential, um, despite people calling this high density, it's really not a high density project. uh if if it pans out the way it's going the way that the applicants intend for it to pan out, it's going to come out at about about four units per acre somewhere right around there. Which when I'm looking at that surrounding zoning and I've got the SF3 and 15,000 square foot lots and I've got, you know, SF5 with 10,000 square foot lots and I've got the SF8 which is directly to the south. Those lots range between about 8 and 11,000. Actually, most of the lots right kind of adjacent to that picture that we saw where it goes up onto the property, those are all right about 8,500. So, when I'm looking at a potential development um and I'm looking at the density of the surrounding area, I I think that this is compatible with that. And granted, we're not going to know more until that development comes forward, but staff is comfortable making a recommendation of approval on this because of the subsequent entitlements that are going to be required. Can I ask a quick follow up on that? So, uh, and Leah, you talk about the the density and there was public comment that, uh, stated that in the surrounding areas, while the zoning may be, for instance, SF8, for example, the actual density is lower. When you're evaluating compatibility, are you looking at the actual density or the permitted density under the zoning that surrounds the parcel we're considering? I'm looking at both. So, I'm not only looking at that SF8 zoning, but then I'm also looking at the history of how that was became SF8 and then I absolutely uh look at the actual density of that development. And as I outlined in my staff report, there's a table in my staff report that I didn't include in my presentation that actually has what the actual lot sizes of the adjacent developments are. And they're generally some of them are in the 6,000 area similar to this. Uh like I said, the one directly to the south that's all right about 8,500 in that particular area. They do go up to about 11,000 depending on where you are, but the majority of them are in that. So I look at both. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Delvr, I think I'm not sure who this is for yet. Um, so my my concern with this is, you know, sort of to Commissioner Veltto, like why why didn't why didn't SF5 kind of come into play here? And you kind of that was kind of answered by the applicant. Um, but why why would we reszone all 42 acres? It just seems like there's potential. And I get that get that it's hard to develop and expensive and there's slope and all that other stuff, but why would we why would we change the entire zone for that area if they're only going to actually focus on 16 or 17 acres, whatever it is. Well, that is a fabulous question and I probably can answer it. I think it's better answered by the applicant. Thank you. We I'm trying to do two things here. On the on one hand, excuse me. On the one hand, we we have no problem dedicating that or zoning it open space. Um on the other hand, um I'd like this process to move ahead and I'd like a decision to be made tonight and not have this project be delayed. Um, so, um, well, so maybe I can I'll explain why why I have concerns is we get a lot of things that come before us, a lot of I mean, I can't tell you how many times things have changed and if if we reszone it that whole area and and again, I get I get that you'll come back with a tenative map for us and some other things too, but um, just trying to sort of mitigate some of that now and try to determine if there's some sort of compromise we can make so that I I can offer a compromise. It's not a zoning compromise. It's a it's a future compromise. Uh and that would be that uh when we get our our tenative map lots drawn, then we dedicate the remainder as as open space. Uh so that would that would provide a legal protection. Um that requires uh you to remember this and look for it when the tenative map comes in. Um but I my experience is planning commission and city staff have long memories and if you talk nonsense up here they they call you on it. So uh yes we would be happy to dedicate uh uh to unused portions of our parcel as as open space including u uh including some public continuing some public access trails. Uh that's the owner's lawyer is going to have something to say on that at the right time, but but we're not opposed to it. Thank you. I go commissioner. I have something for the applicant. Um you spoke that you're engineers here and you guys you also spoke that you have uh are generally close to a tenative map plan. Yes. Okay. Um doing math which I am also not good at. Uh, it says roughly 10,000 square foot lots, not including any infrastructure, open space, um, or roads. Do you guys have a general idea of I mean, if you're mostly through a tenative map, wouldn't you have a general idea of what these lot sizes are going to look like? We are are not going to hit 10,000 feet, 10,000 square feet. Um, they'll probably be um 5,000 to 6,000. Okay. The majority probably most of them within that range between five and six. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And I have something for staff. Whatever. Do you have something for applicant? Go ahead, Mr. Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Williams again for the record. What does uh I tried to do a brief search. What do we consider high density at this point in the city? Lot size. Is there a general idea of Well, thank you. That's a good question, Leo Picotti. for the record. Uh, generally when I'm thinking about high density, I'm thinking about um stacking. Um, so generally we're looking at multif family or condos or things like that. Um, you know, there's not a standard that says this is high density and this is not high density. I live in SF8 and I don't consider the area that I live in high density. Um, I have a beautiful yard and trees and everything else. Um, so there's there's not a general standard if that answers the question. And yeah, I I did a little clicking around on the wash out quick maps. There isn't a single lot I found in that upper part of that area that's under 10,000 square feet. I can pull it up on my computer. I have it. You have it? I've just been clicking random houses. So when you're looking at even if it dipped down into the eights or nines, we're we're talking about fives or six. And correct. So we just I don't think the applicant really got into it, but so minimum lot size in SF8 is 6,000 or 7,000 square feet. However, I think the intent here, and correct me if I'm wrong, is to use cluster development. So they can reduce the lot sizes, and cluster development can be used in any zone. It could be used in SF3. It could be used in SF5 or SF8. They're going to reduce the lot sizes in exchange for more open space if that makes sense. So they can't increase the density. They the density does not increase. The maximum allowed number of units is the same, but the lot sizes can be reduced in exchange for open space. And I know you haven't been here for very long. I know some of the other commissioners have been here have seen these cluster developments um in the past few months. And it's it's a bit confusing, but a lot of times when we're looking at lots that have uh developmental development constraints like this, we'll suggest as staff to use cluster development so that there are smaller lot sizes and we're preserving more open space. And then that way when the tenative map does come in, we can send it over to Truckucky Meadows Trails and have them look because now we have extra open space to work with. We can look at dedication of that open space. We can look at all of those different things. And one of the reasons that staff didn't recommend reszoning this as partially parks, greenways, and open space and then the rest of it SF is because the applicant wasn't there yet. They they their tenative map isn't done. So in the meantime, they can do the SF3. Those what did we say 30 acres or so are probably not going to be allowed to be developed. Anything on slopes over 30% can't develop it. Uh, Commissioner Williams, one more question for you, Leah. Um, factoring in the the hillside issues that we're going to have, is the city have a general idea um, using that the hillside grading reductions of what this is going to eventually look like? No. Okay. I just I I haven't done the math myself. The applicant may have more information on that. Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant have? Yeah, for the record, Jason Gillis, Tech Engineering. Um, in regards to the hillside, there was a previous tenative map on this proc on this project and the hillside um development process through that already delineated areas that qualify in those different grading zones. So, going back to the zoning issue we were talking about earlier, uh any of that really steep stuff, you don't get any any zoning for it anyways. It's a zero. Um so, even though it's it can be zoned whatever, you're not getting any density for the really steep stuff, but that's public record part of the original tenative map. It's it's going to be the same number as we use when we have our tenative map. Um to Derek's point, yeah, minimum 6,000 square foot lots in this um under this zoning. And you know, it's really tough to say when we're doing this engineering, we want to keep that minimum or better. But there's a point in the grading, especially on a site like this. You saw those twin hillsides, we make a lot a little bit bigger and all of a sudden we chase that scar all the way up the hill. So that's where the cluster helps us to limit that grading, but we fully intend that most of the lots will be at that minimum for the zone for the SF8. Thank you. So I don't know if I answered all your questions. Yeah, I mean I was hoping for a number, Commissioner Williams again for the record. Uh I mean you're you're crossing your fingers we're going to get 65. I mean what's the realistic outlook on it? Is it 40? Is it 50? My client would love it if I got 65. Yeah. Um, I'll be satisfied if I get in the high 50s. That's the godhonest truth. Um, it may not even end there after staff looks at it, after we deal with trails and TMWA and everybody else. Um, but that's we're just not there yet. Um, but per the hillside uh ordinance stuff, um, I think when you take it to SF8, the maximum you can get on this, and I'd have to check the numbers, is 73. That's if per the numbers using the old tenative map hillside ordinance. This site doesn't get there unless you go to an attached type product. If we want to keep it single family residents, it's going to be in the 50s60s. Thank you. Y uh Commissioner Jockman. So my question I have two questions both focused on engineering and the second one I think will be for uh well I'll go with this one first. Staff mayor want to layer in. So there was a public comment about that that that touched on flooding. So there are canyons in that area. You have a lot of topographic change. Obviously we're looking at a zoning map amendment. So I recognize that we do not have a project in front of us but um what sort of uh elements to this project might provide a betterment or uh mitigation nothing less than that with regard to flooding in those canyons and through because those folks do live downhill from where this development would occur. Certainly. Again, Jason Gillis, uh, for the record, um, there's one drainage that, uh, comes out of that canyon, roughly align with the, uh, dead end of Moose Ridge, then turns off to the east, goes down, uh, gets captured in the city's storm drain system. Um, you can see it in the topos, the dirt road that comes off the the end of Moose Ridge. There's at least three spots where that dirt road crosses the the uh the creek. My high school kids go out there and do their thing. And I know I uh I lived in this neighborhood for a long time. Both my kids went to Roland and and graduated from McQueen. So the off-roading that goes on right there has degraded that portion of the creek. It's flat. When they catch a flood, that water comes up. It follows the dirt road right down to Moose Ridge. That's what happened years and years ago. They fixed that. They threw a burm up. The last time I was in front of this body, we worked with the last homeowner at the end of Moose Ridge on the east. As part of the design, we were going to put up a burm to push any water that came down that way from her backyard. At the same time, with our development plan, we have to channelize that creek. We have to detain our excess water. We have to basically solve that issue of storm water coming down the creek and city staff's pretty good at holding our feet to the fire on that. Sure. So, uh, Miss Picotti, I guess, would you like to add into any of that? Are there any codes or standards that future tenative map would be subject to that would require the applicant to uh not just mitigate but perhaps even improve the storm water attenuation that would that the uh the residents to the south would be subject to. Yes, absolutely. Um, Commissioner Jackman, Leah Picotti, for the record, we have a large section of code on these particular matters and what's going to be required. Um, I would say, oh gosh, at least a couple hundred pages of our 600page zoning code. Okay. So, that's that's good to hear. Will can you can you say that allowing development to occur in this parcel will overall improve the uh future floods that may occur that you know 100red-year event? I can say that when a development proposal comes forward not only will this project meet but it will exceed those codes. Thank you. Yield to any other commissioners for questions. Commissioner Berva I believe uh Commissioner Roar has her hand up and uh I'll go and yield to her first. I've gone once, so Commissioner Biser, why don't you go and then I'll ask. Sounds great. Yep. Um, more clarifying question, Leah. Um, how does this proposed zoning change align or maybe not align with the uh initiative that um kind of was brought to light in one your past projects around the foothills where we gradually go to lower density as we go higher up in elevation? Thank you. Good question. So, it's not necessarily that we go to lower density, it's that we try to keep those lower densities on the outskirts. And what we've seen in this particular area is that SF8. And who knows what's going to happen with the properties to the north of that. Those eventually could get developed and annexed into the city as well as development starts to move out into those areas. So, I would say again that SF8 is pretty low density zoning. Um, it's it's not large lot residential, but I'm not sure that we're going to end up seeing horse property out in those areas anytime soon. I think we we have a site that has adequate infrastructure. We have tama, we have utilities, we have roads, we have everything ready to develop this site. So, why why not utilize that? Great. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Roar Meer. Yes, please. Um, hi Leah. I just wanted to ask two questions. Um, first, can you tell us with cluster development and I was just reviewing all the code sections on hillside developments. How what is the provision provision for a reduction by cluster? Could they have asked for and should maybe they have asked for a higher zoning classification that feels more palatable to the neighborhood and then still use the cluster standards to get the lot size they desire? I mean, how how much smaller can those lots be? What is the deviation? Thank you, Commissioner Roire. I I don't believe that there's a specific standard for a deviation in cluster development, but we'll check on that here and just confirm that. Um there there is not an a standard deviation for that. Um are are you are you saying that they could have asked for like SF15 but because of the hillside provisions the cluster development maybe would allow for an SF3 like footprint. Um, if I'm following your line of thought, yes. I mean, cluster development can reduce those lot sizes, but doesn't allow for the increase in density. Seems like um, okay. So, it would be good to see calculations like that to kind of see the cost benefit. Um, I think that that would help understand the context of the neighborhood. But also, my other question was, does a slope map not generally of the zoning request. I feel like we're doing this backwards. Can you give me your interpretation? Uh slope map's not required for a zoning map amendment. I feel like we could have asked for the for something like a slope map, but the problem is is that we're not looking at development here. And I know that this seems backwards, but this is the way that it is done. uh zoning comes first because the applicants don't want to put the time and the money and everything that's going to be required into the engineering for a tenative map if the zoning doesn't get approved. So the first step is really the zoning. Now looking at what is feasible on that property that's going to be up to the applicant and their engineer. Um, and I I had several conversations with the applicant about what kind of direction we were going with this and they were open with me about the fact that they believed it was going to end up being cluster development, but they just don't have a tenative map ready at this point. So, I can't start reviewing anything related to development um until I have that and they don't want to start creating that until they have the zone change. I appreciate that, Leah, but um the applicant just stated that they had that information on hand from the previous development and I might add that a simple GIS analysis uh would identify 30% slopes or greater at no additional cost of services. So we should be able to identify where those 30% 100% requirement for open space in those areas. So maybe the applicant could address that. Again, Jason Gillis, Tech Engineering for the Record. Um, I believe you're asking where the slope map is, but my answer is it's public record. We didn't hide it. We're not trying to hide it. We're talking about it. We're going to use it during the tenative map process. As you can imagine, the steep slopes are, you know, at the top of the hill, you know, as you work away from Moose Ridge as you go up that hill. I I I I guess I don't understand the question exactly, Carrie. So, would it make sense because your surrounding developments have both types of zoning, both parks, greenways, and open space, and places designated for single family, and that you are asking for a zone change. So my feeling is the simple slope map indicates where 30% slopes are or greater. And yes, it makes sense that they're uphill and certainly over to the west side where that Tumbla water facility tank is to already have identified those and then have your ten your zoning map reflect those areas that you know you're not going to be disturbing to be consistent with the neighborhood. I guess my point was that since it was public record from the previous tenative map, we didn't feel that we needed to to lay that out that way. But it you could in essence be asking for two types of zoning in your zoning map request that is in fact more contextually relevant to the neighboring properties. We could. Now, your position might be that you don't agree with that. I'm just asking, do you or don't you? I guess I I I don't I don't know. I don't know that it's a matter of agreement. Um any of those areas that are steep, we don't get the benefit of the zoning density for anyways. So, it accomplishes the same thing. Thank you. Any further questions from the commission? Hearing none, we will close questioning and uh move into deliberations. Uh chair ready to um please proceed. Commissioner Alto. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Alto. Uh this is a difficult project for me to evaluate. Um the trouble with these zoning map amendments is in my view we are just supposed to look at the surrounding areas and what the zoning permits uh and make a determination as to whether this zoning is compatible. The applicant has come forward and clearly has a vision for what they want to do and they've given us some information that I wouldn't typically expect to hear at a zoning map amendment as to what that vision is and how the project's going to go. I'm concerned that our questions are somewhat uh using their preparation against them when we should be looking really just at the surrounding zoning and whether this is compatible. Um, I'll start with the compatibility issue. I guess I slightly disagree with Leah respectfully on this point. I I view it more as what is permitted, not what is being used. And I think the reason why I view it that way is if you had two parcels next to one another, one was SF8, one was SF3. The SF8 parcel just had one house on 10 acres. I wouldn't support us precluding the SF3 parcel from going to SF8 merely because the SF8 parcel owner decided not to build on it. That's why I think we should look at what is permitted not as what is actually used. Um so I I think just gen so in terms of compatibility because the surrounding zoning there is zoning next to it that is FF8. I do think it is compatible. Um, I hear a lot of concerns about how this development will play out and I'm comfortable getting to the zoning map amendment change because of all the hoops that they will have to go through and all that the chances we'll have to look at it, especially if they're considering cluster development. I mean, we dealt with a cluster development project off Seventh recently. It was a whole new set of findings on top of the tenative map findings, on top of the other things that we're going to have to look at. So, I'm I almost think that issues about traffic, uh, a bunch of the other stuff that were raised, very valid concerns, um, but not ripe for our consideration because we're just looking at compatibility with the surrounding zoning areas. So, I think it says a lot that the applicant is willing to commit on the record that they will designate certain areas for uh, open space going forward. Um, we can't condition a zoning map amendment. So the only way we can bind them to that is in the future remembering it and bringing it up. But I, you know, I I guess I'm stuck with that perspective and the other perspective of where it seems like they might be able to get to SF do it with SF5 and then Commissioner Roire's comments about well if they're going to do and this was kind of my understanding of it is if they're going to do cluster development anyway, it doesn't matter what the zoning is because there's no deviation requirement. So I'm kind of stuck between those two parts when evaluating that. Um, those are my thoughts. Um, Commissioner WR, thank you, Commissioner Alto. I have similar issues with, you know, I mean, again, looking at what's permitted, right? But what's permitted is we're looking at 42 acres, not not just what they're planning on building on. And that's that's where I'm I'm struggling right now. And again, I totally appreciate um their willingness to designate what they don't use. Um and and again I get the catch 22 and horse before the court cart and all that stuff. But um again for me it's just a concern that if we do the zone change it's for the 42 acres not not just for whatever 17 18 that they might actually end up using. So those are my concerns. May I um follow up on Commissioner Delvr's comments and my discussion? Yes, please proceed. Yes, I really want to uh strike uh bring that to light as well because the zone changes for the full 42 acres and that density is going to be transferred and with the cluster development used advantageously to the number of lots that end up on the tenative map. And what I'm sensing here is incomplete engineering because there is no additional cost or effort to really put a slope map on top of zoning and identify and carve out areas that could be parks, green space and greenways and open space that this feels very much like we're going to see something different at the tenative map and I think it will come to a surprise to the neighbors that they're not going to be happy with and this could have been demonstrated tonight very clearly. Commissioner Reserve for the record, similar sentiments as Commissioner Roar Meer, Delvr and actually as Commissioner Belto as well. Um, I'm kind of in the middle right now trying to get to the findings, but at the moment I cannot, so I'm a reluctant um kind of know at the at this time. I guess uh I'll uh speak to your comment there, Commissioner Roier. So when we're looking at a zoning map amendment um you know you you mentioned incomplete engineering it is tough for um us to review those things and you know sometimes when we have a concept presented to us from the applicant with a zoning map amendment or an SPD uh we might jump to conclusions about what that concept could be yet that again might not be what the project ends up being. So for that very purpose to me it kind of looks like we should be focused on the request for the zoning change and um keeping that simple because we will see it again should a tenative map come forward forward. Thank you. Any other comments from the commission? I got one. Commissioner Williams for the record. Um I'm I'm struggling with neighborhood compatibility. I I just the way that the master plan is laid out is that these areas are going to be generally consistent with higher densities in this in the middle and moving its way out to less denser areas. It feels like we're going backwards here to go from a general area and I've continued to click on these lot maps um to find where you know staff is saying that they're generally in the same. I've found maybe one or two out of 20 or 30 that are less than 10,000 square feet in in total lot size. So to go back to 6,000 square ft lots in a cluster development that is not compatible as you go up the hill because most of this in the master plan was designed to have buffer areas around these more higher denser areas. I think this could have been um also in the SF5 and I I would have supported that. I think as far as this stands, um I I can't make the recommendation to the council that this is um compatible with the existing neighborhood. Uh Commissioner Commissioner Delvier again. Um and and to sort of Commissioner Williams point um and I don't know sort of what the process is. I'm going to look at Mike. Uh but again it it would be good if we could come to some resolution tonight. Is there a way we can talk about SF5 or only zoning certain acreage or I don't know how that Yeah, I think Commissioner DelviR is asking if if we have the ability to modify the application and also if if we were to suggest doing so if if we have the ability to ask for the support from the applicant. My my only request on this is that if we do that, we should ask the applicant their perspective. Well, of course. Definitely. Yeah, absolutely. I'm just wondering if that's because again, he said they'd like to get to resolution tonight and I think that there might be some compromise. I'm going to make a statement that I want legal to confirm, but I would think that the if that would be the case, it would be more appropriate to continue this item and renotice for for what the zoning proposed would be. So if that's the case, this is a zoning map amendment. So this will go to city council regardless. Is that correct? Of our vote. That is correct. So perhaps for the applicant, we should instead of a continuence, we it's going there anyway, right? So we should we should make a decision regardless and allow it to pursue city council. Uh yes, applicant, would you like to speak to that? Yeah, I I appreciate you trying to manage that. Um we we would accept a continuence. uh we think it makes sense uh to give our engineering team uh time to time to take a hard look at that and and make sure that that that works for us. Uh we believe it does. Uh but I think a one month continuence would would work for everyone. I'll I'll make a motion to continue the item. Commissioner Bera, for the record, really quickly, do you know do you know what the ask is? So, uh, sir, like the additional information being asked of so you can make We would like to evaluate whether SF5 uh would achieve our our project goals. Okay, great. And then uh, Commissioner Warm, was there anything about the slope map you wanted them to focus on in this month's duration? Just trying. Yes, I think in the followup presentation it would be very easy to demonstrate topography, slope map, so contours, slope map, and your proposed zoning. Just try to make the use of everyone's time here. Be judicious. As you said, the reminder, we're happy to work with staff on on working out what what they think works as well. Sure. Since we are still in deliberation, would any commissioners like to provide any other comments for the applicant to consider before a motion for continuance is made? Commissioner Williams, go ahead. Uh, not not really. I think they get the gist of the idea, but I just want to say that I appreciate the the openness here to win and I think we all want this to be successful um and just harmonious. So, um, I I just appreciate your guys' flexibility and willing to work with us on on making this happen. Appreciate it. If I could interject, the the applicant stated that they would be willing uh for a one-mon continuance. So, we would ask that you certain to August 20th. If you're changing the zoning, it has to be renoticed, though. True. Can we do that in a month? Yeah, you can't do it date certain because it the same description carries over. Echo. Uh would Mike, would it be appropriate to do a motion to continue at least 30 days for a date in coordination to be decided in coordination with city staff and the applicant? Yeah, the the applicant's nodding his head, so I think that would that would be best. Perfect. So moved. Second. Sorry. Uh since this is a I this is a first. So this is a continuence on a zoning map amendment which I believe would typically be a roll call vote. Does that uh does that apply for this type of vote? Uh Mr. Hall. So we can take this. Okay. Uh we have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion for continuence uh carries unanimously. We will move on to item 6.4. Mr. Chair, if if it would be okay with the commission, could we take a fivem minute recess to um 6.4? Should we Yeah, we can take a recess. We will take a fivem minute recess and reconvene at 8:13. Okay, we will reconvene the meeting. Uh, Commissioner Roar Meer, are you uh present online? Yep. Okay, we will pick up where we left off. Uh, item we were proceeding into item 6.4, uh, AAA paving storage yard. Um uh do we have any public comment on this item? Madame clerk. No, we do not have any public comment on this item. Can I motion to expedite this? Uh would do do any commissioners have an objection to expediting this agenda item? Agreed. Agreed. Okay. Uh hearing that we will forego the staff presentation. Um let me pull the um we will now entertain any motions uh from the commission. I apologize. We need to do disclosures uh starting with Commissioner Valto. Commissioner Valto, no disclosures. Commissioner Williams, no disclosures. Commissioner Vampantini, no disclosures. Uh Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Commissioner Delvr, no disclosures. Commissioner Mer, no disclosures. Commissioner Ror Meer, same. We will now uh entertain a motion. Uh we did public comment already. Yep. So I'll motion. You're right. Uh in in regards to case LDC25-000058 based upon the compliance with applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit and major deviations subject to contestant uh the conditions listed on the staff report. Commissioner Delvier I second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. We will move on to item 6.5. Item 6.5, South Meadows Parkway Extension grading. We will begin this with a uh presentation from staff. All right. Uh good evening, members of the planning commission. Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. Tonight, the first case that I'm bringing was going to be the second, but thank you for expediting that one. Um, the first case I'm bringing you is LDC25-59, the South Meadows Parkway Extension grading. The project site is about 15.9 acres, uh, comprised of, uh, a portion of four different parcels on the east side of the future Rio Wrangler Parkway extension about 855 ft east of the existing terminus of South Meadows Parkway in the city of Reno and the sphere of influence. The request before you tonight is a major site plan review to allow hill to allow hillside development, grading uh resulting in cuts uh greater than 20 feet and fills greater than 10 ft and disturbance of a major drainage way. Uh as we zoom in here a little bit, the area surrounding the project site is currently being graded to accommodate Talis Valley villages 24, 25, and 26. The proposed roadway extension grading is being coordinated with the grading of the Talis Valley project, which would allow the grading of the future roadway to occur prior to construction of homes on the adjacent lots, thereby minimizing impacts to the Talis Valley community. The request addresses all mass grading for the initial phase of the South Meadows Parkway extension, including grading the footprint to accommodate a 75- foot wide arterial roadway, the redirection of a major drainage way through the site, and slope stabilization. The uh key issues that staff analyzed are hillside development and grading and major drainageway disturbance. The zoning is planned unit development, Talis Valley. Uh you have two uh zoning designations in the county as well, medium density uh rural and general rural. Um the master plan is a combination of single family neighborhood, parks, greenways, and open space and unincorporated transition. And on the screen are five uh goals and policies that support the proposed request. A little bit of background. Uh the South Meadows Parkway Extension was planned as a part of the Talis Valley PUD, which was adopted in July of 2020. The extension was identified in figure 7 in the PUB handbook and that's the figure in the top left uh side of the screen. The extension was also identified as a planned arterial to help connect Reno to Story County, thereby providing an alternative route to the Tahoe Regional Industrial Center, otherwise known as TRIC, as a part of the regional transportation commission 2050 regional transportation plan. The extension was also listed in appendix A of the 2050 RTP and identified as the trick southern connection. Um the request will ultimately help improve regional connectivity. So uh to some extent slopes within the project site are a result of previous grading activities. The project site was dist disturbed by past aggregate pit mining operations previously graded for access to the NB energy substation and the Tumbl water tank and provides public access to a private property to the east. Uh hillside development uh nevertheless hillside development is triggered since slopes exceed uh 15% on more than 25% of the site. gradient is estimated to impact approximately 15.9 acres with cuts expected up to 37 feet in depth and fills anticipated up to 40 feet in height. Okay. Uh the minimum open uh open space preservation requirement is about 7.67 acres but also remember that RMC requires additional open space to be provided at a rate of 2:1 for disturbance or development on slopes 30% or greater. That results in an additional 5.77 acres of open space that is required for a total of approximately 13.44 acres. Uh the project includes about 31.86 acres that will remain undisturbed and that's shown in the two areas here. Um the these areas are currently planned as common area open space per the Talis Valley PUB handbook. Dedication of these areas, which includes a visually prominent ridge line when viewing the site from the valley floor and from Veterans Parkway, preserves natural slopes and the character of the surrounding foothills. Um, to minimize the area of disturbance, the project proposes a combination of 3:1 and 2:1 slopes and a mesh anchor system for slope stabilization to provide a more natural appearance than traditional rock or concrete walls. Um and staff is recommending conditions number five to seven uh to address enhanced grading techniques including treatment of slopes, rip wrap and noxious weeds. Turning to the major drainage way disturbance, the project site is in a wershed that drains approximately 407 acres within a fee within an uh ephemeral drainage way drainageway. Uh it was previously disturbed by the dirt road and is clearly not in a natural state. the road. In fact, the road was cut within the drainage way and over time the drainageway has found its path alongside and within the road. In locations where the drainageway is within the road, accelerated erosion is evident. The current state of the drainage way leads to to degraded water quality downstream and does not function like a natural drainage way. The drainage way will benefit from improvements that that include relocation and fortification of flow banks which will improve water quality. And the future design construction plans for the permanent road improvements will include a revitation plans that would apply drought tolerant species. Here are the recommended findings. The standard findings for a major site plan review and staff can make all recommended findings. Here are the recommended findings specific to Phil's hillside development in a major drainage way for a major site plan review. Again, staff can make all recommended findings. And here's the recommended motion. The applicant will now be making a presentation and I'm available for questions. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Commission, for the record, Garrett Gordon. Um, despite the fact that I do love to talk, I'm going to say we can't talk about a road any more than staff did. So, I'm here for any questions. The planner from Wood Rogers is here for any questions. Our civil engineer is here for any questions and it's a roadway and happy to give my presentation, but I I think Mr. Foster adequately covered a proposed road. Thanks. We will now move into disclosures. I I apologize. Uh public comment. Do we have any Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item? We did not receive any public comment for this item. No uh request to speak forms and no one's on Zoom for this item. Thank you. We will now move to disclosures. Uh starting with Commissioner Velto. Uh Commissioner Valto, I spoke with the applicant's representative. Commissioner Williams, I also spoke with the applicants. Commissioner Gianini spoke with the applicants representative. Senator Jockman spoke with applicant representative. Commissioner Delvier, no disclosures. Commissioner Ber familiar with the site in a brief exchange with the applicants rep. Commissioner Ror may brief exchange with applicants rep by text. Okay, we will now move into questions from the commission for the applicant. Commissioner Mer, for the record, honestly, it's probably unlike me. Uh, but uh I actually would uh entertain a motion, but I feel like it might be premature. Uh, but just want to throw that out there. Any comments? Uh, we will now move into deliberation. any deliberation from the commission. I just wanted to say it's nice to see it slow. Thank you. If um during deliberation, anyone can make a motion at any time. So, Commissioner Bera, we're ready to make a motion. Um in the matter in the matter of case number LDC25-12 LDC25-000059 based upon compliance with the applicable findings. I move to approve the major site plan review subject to the conditions listed in staff report and I can make all the findings. Commissioner Delvr I second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? hearing none. Motion carries on item 6.5. We will now move into item 6.6. And for this item, we will start with disclosures. Uh starting with Commissioner Valto. Commissioner Valto uh spoke with the applicant's representative. Familiar with the site? Commissioner Williams uh familiar with the site and read all included material. spoke with the applicant representative. Uh, fellow commission members and madame clerk, in the interest of full transparency on this item, I am disclosing that Kimley Horn is my employer here. The applicant is seeking approval of a tenative map. The applicant is a client of my employer. On this matter, I sought guidance from the city attorney's office. I've been advised that I have a person commitment in a private capacity to the interests of my employer under Nevada REI statutes. I've also been advised that the independence of judgment or reasonable person in my situation would be material affected by my commitment in a private capacity to the interest of my employer. Accordingly, I will not be participating or voting on this item today. Madam clerk, please uh accept this disclosure and lodge it on the record for this meeting pertaining to this agenda item. I'll step out of the room uh with the vice chair. Please uh take over in my absence. All right, we'll continue on with disclosures. Commissioner Delvier, no disclosures. Uh, Commissioner Ber familiar with the site. Brief exchange with the applicants rep. Commissioner Mary, no disclosures. All right, we're ready for staff presentation. All right. Uh, Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. Uh, Commissioner Bera, thank you for catching that I had one too many zeros in my last motion, so that won't won't happen again. Hopefully, it didn't happen on this one, too. Um, okay. So, Jeff Foster, uh, bringing you LDC 25-60, the Reno Revival tenative map. The project site is about 7.53 acres, uh, bordered by North Virginia Street to the west, East Commercial Road to the north, Lake Street to the east, and West Second Street to the south, with University Way, uh, bisecting the property. The request before you is a tenative map to subdivide the existing Reno Revival buildings, formerly known as Hera's Reno, and create 33 individual parcels to include commercial and retail, plaza, area, and landscape, hotel, parking garage, skybridge, central plant, utility, residential, subterranean, and basement, and common element parcels. So, um, just a little bit of background, the Harris Hotel Casino closed on March 17th of 2020. The property was purchased in October of 2020 by CAI from Caesar's Entertainment, which began development of the Reno City Center project in February of 21. Construction stopped in May of 23 and the redevelopment project subsequently went into bankruptcy in February of 24. Madison Capital Group purchased the property out of bankruptcy in April of 25 and their efforts are focused on developing a mixeduse downtown destination known as Reno Revival. The key issues that staff analyzed our m the mapping process and traffic and pedestrian safety zoning district is mixeduse downtown entertainment and the master plan. Land use is downtown mixed use. And here are 18 goals and policies from the master plan that are in support of the proposed request. So turning to mapping, uh the purpose of the tenative map and the final map processes is to merge and resubdivide the existing 19 parcels creating a combination of standard parcels for the courtyard area along commercial row, the parking garage, and the easterly residential tower. Three-dimensional condominium parcels are proposed within the basement and floors one to four of the remaining existing building. Floors five and above in each tower will be consolidated into a single parcel reserved for hotel and residential uses. And this mapping approach is intended to separate commercial and retail parcels from the hotel and residential parcels. I was going to dive into the weeds a little bit further, but it's probably really not necessarily uh necessary. Um, what I would point out is that condition number six is recommended to allow additional common elements that may become necessary in the future. Turning to traffic and pedestrian safety. Um, since the project involves redevelopment of the site and buildings with uses that are similar to those that existed previously, the city did not require submittal of a traffic study for the tenative map phase. Uh, the existing sky bridge across University Way, which links the west and east portions of the project, will not be available to residents and visitors parking in the garage on the east side. It is anticipated that there will be a substantial uh increase in the number of pedestrians that would be crossing University Way and staff had included condition number eight in the initial staff report, but you also subsequently received a memo recommending deletion of condition number eight and I'll get into that in just here in a second. Here are the recommended findings for a tenative map and staff can make all recommended findings. And here's the recommended motion regarding the deletion of condition number eight. Uh the reason that is is that a lingering condition that survives after the final map and that relates to any building permit which could include things like demolition permits and other types of building permits for other portions of the project that are unrelated to the project's modes of transportation and crosswalks is not advisable. Any proposal to incorporate a midblock crosswalk will trigger the will trigger the requirement for a traffic study to ensure compliance with adopted city and related standards. Therefore, staff is recommending the deletion of condition number eight. And with that, that is the end of my presentation. The applicant will now be making a presentation and I'm available for questions. All right. Believe it. Mr. Vice Chair, good to see you. Thanks again. Uh, for the record, Garrett Gordon, behalf of the applicant. With me tonight is Brianna Bolentini on behalf of the property owner and applicant, and Justin Moore, who is our surveyor. I I will be brief, but this is really kind of a I mean, definitely a fun project. It's not every day that a commercial subdivision map comes before you. Usually, you guys approve what you did earlier or contemplated earlier, tenative maps, which is a 2D map that subdivides properties. This is pretty neat and innovative is as we go vertical just like a residential condo that you can buy kind of up in the air air rights here we're doing a commercial subdivision map which are pretty prevalent in Las Vegas but really one of the first ones we've done up here in Reno. So Mr. um Foster covered the site of course it's the old Hera's um casino hotel. Part of the reason for this mapping is to be able to convert it now into a mixeduse urban development with uh retail, office, residential, hotel, and all different spaces and parcels. So, it's very easy to sell off different portions of the project as well as lease it as well as develop it. Of course, is this this is the existing uh photos of the Harris site which you're all familiar with. So, here's kind of the meat on the bones. So you can see 19 existing parcels, flat 2D parcels. Interestingly, you can see the plaza, which of course we want to redevelop, has 10 parcels subdivided into it. So you can't redevelopment it. You cannot redevelop it correctly. If we wanted to put a building out there, we couldn't put it over property lines. So really this is a cleanup both on the vertical side on the on the horizontal side of APN's to make sure a parcel falls under an existing building. The plaza is in fact one parcel. The parking garage as you can see here is not two parcels, it's one. And how did we end up here? As Bill Hera developed this property, he did in a series of phases and a series of decades. So, as he developed it, he acquired more property, one block to two blocks, and never did any cleanup parcel lines, just built a casino and and operated it. And now that we're moving forward with current modern code and laws, we need to clean this up um so it meets uh not only state law, but um city code. So, what we're going from is the old Harris casino property to downtown vibrant urban mixeduse development. The project programming of course will include residential and that will be not residential condos. So when I mention the word condominium tonight, it's not a residential condo. We're just doing commercial condo spaces. All the residential is proposed as apartments. There'll be some retail entertainment space, office space, plaza activation, as I mentioned, uh hotel and garage. So we're going from 19 parcels to 33 new parcels for the for units for common elements and you'll see it my on my next slide which is I think a fantastic slide that really shows what we're doing creating that commercial retail space plaza space hotel space park garage space all the spaces. So here is really what we're proposing tonight. Our map goes from 19 parcels to 33. For example, in the green there, the hospitality that is a hotel, the current hotel site that will be its own parcel could be sold off to a hotel operator to develop it out and operate it. The two blue spaces for residential. As you can see, they do not extend all the way down to the dirt. So, those two cubes in the air will now be their own parcels that could be sold off to residential builders who can come in and own and operate them. The remainder of the site you can see in mustard yellow the retail space, the parking spaces, the parking garage, those are also being commercially condominiumized out into separate parcels and off in red the office space. Um, interestingly enough, we're parceling out each floor. So for each floor, we could have a buyer come in and buy an entire floor. We've talked to some some users who say, you know, we don't want to lease the space. We want some buy in. We want some skin in the game. We actually want to own a floor. And you can't just sell a floor unless you create legally a parcel. So each of the floors will have their own um um parcels. And of course, as I mentioned earlier, the plaza activation, there'll be a separate plaza uh APN number, parcel number as well. So 19 flat parcels to 33 creative um condominium parcels. And as um was mentioned by staff, this is a commercial subdivision map. So state law allows us to even subdivide some of these spaces even further without coming back uh to you. So it's a great uh tool in state law that Vegas has used a bunch. We haven't used it too much up here, but we've already met with the Wo County uh assessor, the Wo County surveyor, and everyone's on board to move this from tenative map, which hopefully gets approved tonight, the final map and recordation later this year. So, happy to answer any questions. I'll leave this up. Exciting new project for downtown Reno. I think we're all excited for this to get redeveloped. No pressure, Briana, but we're all um watching you and and wanting this to move forward. and I'm happy to answer any question. So, thank you. Thank you. Uh opening us up to public comment. Madame clerk, we have any comment. You received a request to speak form there. Stop this timer. Sorry. Looks like the last name of Bolton. Yes. Yeah, sir. I did not receive Oh, all right. Thank you, sir. I did not receive any other public comment and no one's on Zoom is requesting to speak. Okay, we will close uh public comment outside of the one and we'll go right into questions the commission. Who would like uh disclosures first or did we do that yet? We did. I had to cross it off my list. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um thank you uh Commissioner Williams. Uh Commissioner Per for the record seems great. I'm with you. Revitalize downtown seems like a lot of promise there. a lot of potential. Kind of gives me Santana Rose, San Jose vibes, you know, or at least the potential for it to be something like that. Uh, but Reno style. I did, the one thing that kind of gave me pause for a moment was that the presentation showed that residents couldn't use the Skywalk. Was there a reason for that? Especially in the winter time when it gets a little icy and University Way gets a little dicey as well. All right. Good evening. Just make sure to your name for the record. Thank you. Brianna Bentini for the record. Hi everybody. Um I don't think tonight was really meant to be talking about circulation path, but we can touch upon it. Um this was prior a casino, so the circulation was meant to keep everybody inside. We are trying to activate the street. We're opening up Napper storefronts to be along Second and University. So part of that is for circulation to come out onto the street. Whether you're going if you're parking in the parking garage, which is on the northeast corner, if you're going for dinner, if you're coming home every night, if you're going to the office, we want circulation to come down onto the street. It's also the closest and least um path of resistance from the parking garage into the multif family, which will be our highest volume of users. And so we know by default they're going to do it anyway. And so we want to make that as safe as possible onto University Way. So the sky bridge um right now is actually not ADA approved from the second level where residents will be coming on and then the escalator is um going away up into that space. So really roundabout way of answering that it's just um a a long way of getting there and so we're coming up with a new path of circulation with activation activating the street is our main our main goal. Um it's a whole separate topic that I think we're meeting with public works and everybody on. And so that's why it was exempt out of tonight, but I'm happy to debrief debrief with you later. No, that's perfect. Thank you. Just a quick followup. Um, is there a plan to make it ADA compatible or friendly? The Skybridge. I mean, we're looking at all possible solutions. Fantastic. Thank you. Anybody else? Uh, yeah, it's Commissioner Delvier. I have a couple questions and I think maybe um maybe Jeff for you. I'm not sure yet. Um, so it looks like we're going to add some residential. First off, this is great. I'm excited. I think that obviously this is part of what we've been trying to do. Um, and I like the ingenuity of dividing this up into many different parcels. Um, but one question I had was about um the residential is is that something that or maybe that was part of the zoning um but do we have to talk to the school district or Yeah. So, the the the proposed use is multif family there, but yeah. Yeah. The proposed use is multif family and I believe I included a reference in the staff report that I did speak with the school district and they don't have any concerns about uh the project. Perfect. Just I just wanted to make sure. And then also, um I was just kind of a little bit confused between the condo versus housing versus obviously get the hotel. Um, yeah, maybe maybe Garrett, sorry. Yeah, Garrett Gordon, thanks for the question. So, typically the word condo has a residential meaning to it, right? Uh, a residential condominium. The Arlington Towers, for example, you'd buy a condominium here. Here, it's under state law referred to as a commercial condominium. So, we're creating commercial airspace that could be purchased or leased by commercial businesses, tenants, buyers to come in and fill the office space, um, the retail space, etc. Got it. Excellent. Um, I have another question, but I'll yield for a moment. Anybody else? Commissioner Roire, I can't see or don't even know where to look of your hands up, so yes. Um, maybe it's for Garrett. Garrett, are Is the applicant willing to remove I'm thinking that midblock crosswalk that's a very unexpected feature for a car for you know people who used to driving cars. Um crosswalks are generally at signalized intersections or at the corners at least. Uh that seems very unsafe is what kind of our transportation engineer is unfortunately conflicted out and can't give us his opinion. What what is the next steps on that? Or have you already done a traffic study? I saw that condition 8 was stried. Does that mean that we won't be getting that information? Uh, Commissioner, thank you um for the question and a good one as always. So, it was when that condition kind of popped up, it was a little bit of apples and oranges, right? So, what we're talking about tonight is just creating parcels. We're not talking about circulation or access or really uses. We're just talking about what the new parcels will look like. Um the applicant has been very proactive in meeting with the city on what university way would look like in regards to circulation, crosswalks, etc. And we have written confirmation with the city that as we move forward with our vision for University Way, a traffic study, as your colleague had to disclose tonight, he's currently working on it, of what University Way would look like. So everything is on the table. Nothing is certain. It's being discussed, but again, staff agreed and that's why removing condition number eight. Just not appropriate to add a condition on a map that would live past the recording of a final map because typically tenative map conditions are only the conditions as you know that are required to get to a recorded final map. Everything afterward would be a different entitlement or building permit process. And um with that, and maybe this is a question for Jeff, are we getting a site plan review following this or what because it's downtown, what would be required in terms of entitlement? It seems to me like it go straight to permit. I think most everything would go straight to permit. Um, having said that, any proposal to do anything with University Way, um, eg a midblock crosswalk would necessitate, uh, a review by, uh, engineering and public works, uh, visav a traffic study. Um I was actually in a meeting along with Mike uh uh Khalil from public works, Doug, um several folks who were in the meeting along with Briana um discussing this issue. And um it it's very clear that there will be u a future traffic study that analyzes the potential impacts um of a midblock crosswalk as well as any other related uh infrastructure improvements that would be necessary for subsequent development of the site. Okay. So we won't see it until maybe it's actually operational. Right. Mike, you have a Commissioner Roar. The only thing that I could potentially think of that would come back before this board is potentially something related to live entertainment, but that but the uses themselves would all be permitted by Right. Okay. Thank you. Any follow-up questions? I I have a I do have a question for the applicant. Um actually, well, sure you can you can try to answer as well. Um, so and this is obviously a little bit outside of the purview of like what's going to be done to help this be a successful project that's both on the side of obviously the applicant themselves and then what what can the city of Reno what can we do to make sure this is successful. Um, again, not in regards to how we're going to vote tonight, but I'm just curious like this is a big project and I think there's going to be a lot of moving parts and what sort of what's the plan to again maybe you know make sure that there is um occupancy and and again how can how can the city kind of help make sure this is successful. Yeah. No, thank for the record Garrett Gordon. Thanks for the question. I know it doesn't relate to any any findings tonight but I guess just generally speaking one the city's been great. I know Briana and her team has been meeting with the city on a routine basis to work through all the different pieces of of this puzzle to bring it to life. So city's been been fantastic. No asks on that. And I can say what gives I guess me confidence, you know, personally I've been working on a lot of downtown projects for the last 20 years and excited to have the opportunity to work on this one. There's a great developer um Allquest Development out of Boise who's kind of taken over on the development side and they've done complex mixeduse urban development projects up there similar maps like this up there with different uses and concepts um combined with Brana Bolentini's local experience that team I think has gotten farther than really anyone else has uh including I would say for the record making sure all the old subs and contractors were paid off. There were a lot of leans on this project by a lot of subs. Um so obviously you have to put you know food on the table for families and this team made sure they were all paid off on the most recent refinance to have a clean slate moving forward which was a big deal and probably why you don't have 100 so contractors in here opposing this this application. Fair enough. Thank you. And again I recognize it's outside the purview. I just wanted to again anything like this like it's so big and I think there's so much potential and we want it to be successful and I just want to make sure that again as a community we're rallying around it too. And on behalf of the applicant, I know all of you are welcome to have a tour anytime um to come take a look of maybe what it looks like today and then the vision for going forward. So just let me know. I'll make you connect you and go have a walk through it at at your convenience. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner Brick. Great. Commissioner Mer, more of a clarifying question and maybe some uh levity to it to to the evening. Um what what's the uh I saw Jeff there was an element to to uh like a historic element to tied to um I guess this item before us and I was just wondering what what it relates to and uh Are you all going to keep any of the Planet Hollywood wall signatures? Because I I'm old enough to be I'm old enough to have been here in the 90s when uh Stallone Schwarzenegger, the whole crew were down here and and I'm like, "Oh, this is kind of cool." So, the second question, I have no idea. I would defer that to Briana. The first question that the historic element, what are you referring to that I on your findings? Like there there was like a plethora of like the master plan. Yeah, there was like a historic element to it and I was just wondering like what's the historical tie there? Oh, there you go. Oh, historic character. Okay, what is do you know what that ties to or uh see you see let's see look at this. I learned and now I have all of the find all of the master plan policies here. Historic character incorporate historic structures, signage and other unique features as a part of corridor. So I think address so the and and Garrett's going to address it too but the there is a historic it's not officially designated historic but a historic in nature the historic bank building so first national bank or something like that for the record Garrett Gordon so the bank is certainly has some historical significance that will be preserved and Bon and her team had this unbelievable deck like 70 pages of the vision of bringing the past to to the current and from the Sammy Davis Jr. room to all the other elements. So again, maybe when we give you or any of your colleagues a tour, we can kind of share with you the historical components that'll be preserved. Fantastic. Thank you. No problem. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Moving into discussion. Happy to make a motion. Can entertain one at any time. Go for it, Belto. I'll back you. Uh in the matter of case number LDC25-000060, uh based upon compliance to the applicable findings, I recommend that planning commission approved the tenative map subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings. Uh the sole exception is the deletion of condition number eight. Commissioner Bisera second. All right, we got a motion in a second. All those in favor? I I And looks like unanimous. Thank you for that one. Thank you. Uh Mr. Vice Chair, I'm going to go take a two minute. Oh, that would have been so fun. Just there was some traffic. I know. Moving on to uh item number seven, Truckucky Meadows regional planning leazison report. I believe there's been no meeting since our last meeting. So uh there are no updates uh to give. Uh Commissioner Roar Meyer, do you have anything to add to that? Uh that's correct. Very good. Uh, moving on to item number eight, staff announcements 81384. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I have very little tonight. As you know, the council has been um on break. So, there has not been a meeting since your last meeting for the council. Uh there they are meeting next week. The Mils family zone change, which was you, this board approved in the general area actually of Moose Ridge just to the west of Moose Ridge. Uh that will go before the council next week. Um I would like to welcome Commissioner uh Goffini. Am I getting that right? Okay. Um and we will be uh I I did meet with Commissioner Roier and Commissioner Bera on some of the the training and um kind of reports back to the plan commission they wanted and I'm going to be working we will work to prioritize those and and move that forward now that we have a full board. Very good. Uh number nine, commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. Hearing none, we will move now to public comment item number 10. Madame clerk, do we have any items under public comment at this time? No, I did not receive any public comment forms, request to speak forms, or no one's on Zoom. Commissioner Viserif for the record. Um, I've been lazing with uh, city manager Jackie Bryant and just wanted to share with everyone here and the public that a joint meeting between city council and planning commission for data centers has been confirmed for October 1st and you all should be getting invite in the near future. Looking forward to it. Item number 11, adjournment. I would request that our newest commission to adjourn. Make a motion to adjurnn commission. All those in favor I. Meeting adjourned. [Applause]