foreign are we going to get started Michelle okay well call Now call to order the Thursday June 8th 2023 Reno City Planning Commission meeting uh we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance uh commissioner Villanueva will you please lead us in the pledge from the United States of America foreign uh can we please have a roll call commissioner draculic here commissioner Armstrong president commissioner Gower uh well uh he's going to be a late commissioner Johnson here commissioner Munoz will not be in attendance commissioner Villanueva here chairman velto here we have a quorum great thank you uh we'll now move to public comment and open up public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or any general public comment and here's we have one request to speak form uh we'll um Alex Barajas please come up yes sir oh yes sir okay okay and you have three minutes okay can I start now all right my name is Alex Salazar I attend hug high school I have concerns over the housing expenses in Reno Nevada and I have and how they have increased since the pandemic so we begin so to begin everyone loves to come home to a nice warm bed and wake up and get the food from their fridge whenever they please after a long day you may want to brush your teeth change into some comfortable clothes it's the normal day to they take to day-to-day action most people will take in their comfortable homes but have you ever thought how long did it take for someone to afford that home how are people maintaining their homes and you know when prices have skyrocketed imagine someone you know such as a friend who's trying to move out or perhaps a family member who wishes to relocate back on the biggest little little city head of smaller population this was not a stressful matter post pandemic however this may be too stressful for for some due to how expensive housing has gotten how Reno is no longer affordable as it once was thank you thank you for your comments next we have Thomas farajas [Music] hello my name is Tomas and I'm from Hook high school and today I'm going to be speaking about global health issues and hold on one second sorry about that um and in today's interconnected world global health issues are a growing concern that affects millions of people worldwide from infectious diseases to Chronic health conditions this issue posed significant challenges to health and well-being individuals and communities across the globe such as its Essentials understand Roots causes and these challenges have worked together to develop uh solutions that can help us address them um from the ongoing covid-19 pandemic to the rise of antibiotic resistance bacteria Global health issues are a major concern for individuals government and organizations worldwide thank you very much thank you both for coming out and giving comments tonight during public comment we really appreciate it with any other requests to speak forms for general public comments there are no other requests to speak forms and we don't have any voicemails and nobody is on Zoom wishing to speak approval of the minutes is there a motion chair of Alto before I I do have a couple questions um I can you remind me if the videos are incorporated into the minutes like the um this is for um the new Nathan um can you remind me or are the video recordings everything incorporating into the minutes I I can't remember sorry what do you mean by the minutes just the minutes do we incorporate so for example if they're ever used on the record in court proceedings or anything like that can they be they are recorded yes okay so they can be they are included with their minutes okay and then our presentations also included with the minutes when they're posted on the website I don't know that Michelle do you know hi um so the presentations and any public comment that is made during a Planning Commission meeting are attached to the agenda system at the end of the meeting or the next day so they are available for public Com or for the public to review and they are part of the public record the any videos that are shown are on our recording um but there's no way to attach an actual video to our system oh no no that's totally fine I just didn't know okay thank you um and I'm happy to motion to approve perhaps the city attorney's office could weigh in just to get a complete answer to your question sure I think the question was if the video was incorporated into the minutes I know it's available on our website so I don't know if it's actually Incorporated but I'm assuming that it is and it's always available on the website so you can watch all the meetings and the attachments Okay the reason I ask is I I never know if I should say that every time we vote if I should say a request to have them incorporated or if it's automatic so um and you're telling me it is automatic it is automatic okay great thank you and I'm happy to make a motion approved please do we have a second question hi hi commissioner Johnson I will be abstaining as I was not present uh commissioner belt I'll be abstaining as well which makes the motion carry four to zero four to zero to two uh and we'll now move on to agenda item number five which is the public hearings we'll start with agenda item 5.1 case number ldc23-00057.com stock Cottages phase two time extension John thanks for joining us thank you very much Mr chair John krumpatic representing the applicant Rob Fitzgerald all of you know Rob Fitzgerald uh were graciously requesting your support for this time extension I'll quickly go through a couple of slides some of you would remember back in 2019 here's the vicinity map phase two and phase one and then the up railroad crossing is the key element here it's really the basis of this request going back to 2018 on Comstock 1 2019 on Comstock 2 both joined at the hip as it relates to meeting this condition of approval I think it's important to share with the commission who weren't here a reminder to the rest of you that were and the public there is Phase One and phase two and a little bit more detail the footprints of each project again I want to draw your attention uh to Comstock Drive so you see that air that that leg of Road between the project entry and down to Virginia Street we spent a lot of time at this with the community Mr Fitzgerald and I hosted a neighborhood meeting up there nabs PC and um this condition number nine in the next slide involves a lot going on in that leg of Comstock drive and if you look in the left margin here's what we agreed to and trying to get accomplished and recording a map and building the project 9A The Bike Line Northbound the sharo southbound and B widened to a collector Street standard that entire stretch the sidewalk depends the width four to eight feet for the entire stretch and there's a there's a pinch Point underneath the McCarran uh underpass that's why it's variable in width and then we also agreed to remember we had RTC show up at the hearing and there was these right right turn lane Northbound on Virginia Street was a capacity related Improvement that helps out operationally we're here to try and do this we want to do it Mr Fitzgerald could speak to it if you wish that's all I have Commissioners thank you for your time here for any questions [Music] yes thank you playing commissioner Brooke Oswald associate planner for the record um I have a very brief presentation also as was noted this is a request for an extension of time and I'll go over this really quick um as we look at the site just so you have an idea where the site is um this would be the intersection of dandini and 395 the intersection of McCarran in Virginia so it's that Hillside that sits just above Virginia there uh ISO we have kind of an access coming off the North End an existing neighborhood of the University neighborhood up above there hills and then this particular project which it came through in two phases um this is it is for the uh an extension of time it's 196 dwelling units was originally approved by this tenant back in 2009 so just to know with that um with this um extension of time that you cannot modify the conditions it is just that extension of time that comes through uh Nevada revised Statute 278-360 that allows four years to record a final map and then does allow of coming forward before this body in an additional two years to get that through as was detailed by the applicants representative they are working with the railroad those those Communications can become challenging and um to give them more time staff is supportive of that um should be noted too phase one of this project which is the lower portion that connects to Comstock um that time extension was approved back in 2022 and looking at the project 196 that phase one being that bottom portion I'll leave you with this I was the original Planner on this um and did work with those conditions on making sure that those traffic conditions were met and those other conditions with our engineering team and so once again staff is is supportive of this time extension from that for them to allow them the time to to work through those issues thank you I'll leave you with the recommended motion available for questions as needed thank you thank you I will come back to the commission for disclosures we'll start with commissioner Johnson thank you Mr chair Mr Johnson no disclosures commissioner villanue that I'm familiar with the site commissioner draculation no disclosures commissioner Armstrong no disclosures uh commissioner I spoke with the applicants representative um we'll Now open up public comments do we have any requests to speak for us we did not receive any correspondence voicemails or requests to speak forms and do not have anybody via Zoom that would like to speak um would anyone the public like to speak on this item and then the the two requested before you just received receiver those for general public comments okay okay um is I have a question for City attorneys is there is there an Avenue to reopen general public comment if you want to reopen General comment you can do that okay and you might want to wait till after this item and then perfect thank you so much um but anyone the public like to speak on this item okay we'll close public comment on this item and come back to the commission for questions or questions of the applicant Mr Johnson thank you Mr chair John brief question um I understand that I understand the requests I understand that the issues dealing with the railroad I guess my question is actually one of the rest of the development has the you know obviously this is uh an area that you're responding to that's not contiguous with the rest of the development has the in the interim time uh has there been work continuing on the final map process and all of those items separate from the issues with the railroad crossing yes okay and that's all so essentially it's all going forward and including I didn't mention but there is what I'm understanding is good faith between the railroad and the applicant it's progressing okay there's just no statutory requirement to you get it understood thank you I just wanted to make sure that of course thank you appreciate it thank you Mr chair man hi John while you're up here uh so I for the presentation on one of the uh Lots I don't recall I you know I didn't look back at those minutes I don't recall if um we had similar um similar situation with cuts and fill so it looks like grading uh resulting in Cuts greater than 20 and then feels greater than 10 on this site was that similar to the other it was similar same kind of topographic region right phase one phase two very similar in topography okay because I believe I approved that one I believe you made the motion yeah okay all right thank you thank you thank you thank you more motion Mr chair I'm ready to make a motion please do uh in the um case number ldc23-00057 based upon compliance with NRS 278 360. uh I moved to approve a two-year time extension on The Comstock Cottages phase two tentative map subject to the original conditions of approval you votion a second is there a second commissioner Dracula try a second all those in favor aye you post okay the motion carries unanimously okay before moving on to agenda item 5.2 I'm going to reopen public comments and we have a published comment from uh Daniel Davis hi um yeah um I'm Daniel Davis I'm from Proctor Ugg uh product Proctor R Huck high school and I would like to talk about wage inequality today um I believe that there needs to be more Awareness on the issue of it as it has an impact on all of our community um we need to recognize that wage inequality is not just an economic issue but also a social justice issue that affects people from all backgrounds and walks of life a gap between different social classes keeps increasing and won't stop unless something is done secondly we need to address the root causes of wage inequality this includes factors such as discrimination based on gender race and ethnicity as the child of a single African-American mother also Asian forgot to put that I felt its effects firsthand it's extremely difficult to provide for yourself when you're a caregiver and you have a child and rent keeps Rising sorry I'm not really really good with public speaking um along with this we need to look at the impact of globalization and automation on the labor market machines are rapidly being integrated into the workforce so what are people meant to do if a machine takes their job we need to take steps towards a more inclusive and diverse Workforce and ensure that all individuals have access to Education and Training that will enable them to succeed in the new economy thirdly we need to take concrete steps to reduce wage inequality this can include increasing the minimum wage for our city here implementing progressive taxation policies and providing tax incentives to companies that promote paying equity um what we need is to ensure that our policies and initiatives are backed by strong political will and public support the people need your support chair members we need leadership and collaboration across all sectors of society including including business labor government and Civil Society that's all I have I'm sorry I don't know how to really end this do I that's really all I have thank you chair members thank you you did an excellent job thank you for coming and speaking to us since we've opened public comment does anyone else would anyone else like to speak during general public comments seeing none and having no other requests to speak for us we'll close public comments and move to agenda item 5.2 case number ldc23-00056 Carville Park Senior Apartments SPD development partner uh of the applicant Northern Nevada building and construction trades Council uh we're here to talk about Carvel Park Senior Apartments I'll give you some context but uh at the beginning it's important to think of this as a preservation of affordable housing that's the intent that's the motivation and I'll explain some of the uniqueness as to why we're here but Carvel Park was built in 1979 by The Building Trades it's been owned and operated uh as a non-profit with its mission of being elderly preference affordable housing um it was built as uh uh 52 four-bedroom apartments uh and I'll show you on the next slide four plans very similar to what you might see in a college dorm there's a common area Kitchen in the living room and then four separate four separate beds uh but as we have noted here there's 11 two-story buildings plus a office Community Center there's 134 parking spaces 15 that are accessible and the resident criteria is there there hasn't been any extensive Renovations so the the impetus of this is that the properties had a lot of deferred maintenance it's in need of a renovation it'll go through a tax credit renovation in addition to a HUD extension of a subsidy which I'll get into but the uniqueness here is as you'll see on the next slide this is the existing floor plan so the property has a 208 unit HUD hap contract and hap stands for housing assessment payment back in the 70s and 80s HUD gave out loans to non-profits called the 202 program with it came a hap contract and so all the residents at Carvel Park and historically have always enjoyed from this subsidy uh as we got through covid uh HUD had some at a national level some uh deeper investigations and similar to their properties and thought that these common area setups weren't terribly healthy especially in elderly senior uh the property is up for renewal of that hap contract through HUD it'll happen this fall and it was a perfect timing to go through the tax credit process recapitalize the property go through extensive Renovations and Hud's only comment was Could You Really Turn those into four individual Studios and eliminate the common kitchen and give each resident their own kitchen it's important to note there's 208 leases so as you can see Ingress and egress is to each individual unit and then they have another door that gets to a kitchen so each resident uses their own front door to get in and out is kind of a very unique floor plan and each resident is 208 each has resident has their own lease in most cases you'll get four strangers that live in a in a quad so to speak uh so with that we went to the city and we said hey we're going to do this really extensive renovation there's 208 leases there's 208 people it's still going to be 208 it's still going to be and obviously 52 four bedrooms isn't the same as 208 Studios and so we're here and with the assistance of staff and the city's been great uh it was that you needed to do an SPD and it needs to be an SPD for 208 Studios because we'll be adding a kitchen and that changes kind of the definition of a dwelling unit so with that here's uh some renderings of what we're looking at what will happen in its future use so it goes from 50 to four bedrooms to 208 apartment units the buildings will still be the same from the outside you won't be able to there's no additions there's no extensions there will be cosmetic upgrades as you can see here parking spaces will remain the same we did a traffic study but it's kind of moved there's no additional parking or traffic that would happen accessibility will be remain the same the great part is we keep the affordability The Residency no change we will continue to serve an elderly preference uh HUD will effectively subsidize the the additional costs in rent so the residents don't see any change we maintain our affordability and the upgrades to the units super critical so with this they'll come fire suppression that'll be in all the units doesn't exist now hardwired fire alarms doesn't exist now the first four units all have a step that doesn't meet Hud's requirement for Ada accessibility we'll be able to address that with the renovation we'll have 50 of the units that are Ada accessible which is five times what the requirement is with HUD additional landscape upgrades will modernize some of the amenities but the real kicker would be a floor plan that's a little similar to this and this is conceptual right now but as you can see the doors all remain the same it's just the addition to of a kitchen each each unit and we change the bathrooms a little bit but each resident has has their own space their own Studio uh and with that I'm happy to uh answer any questions thank you there we go all right Jeff Foster associate planner for the record bringing to you tonight LTC 2356 the Carville Park Senior Apartments SPD so the project site just to give you a frame of reference is located just east of the Reno Sparks livestock Event Center in the Washoe County Complex it's highlighted there in yellow just off of Sutro and Carville it's 4.53 Acres spread over two Parcels the second parcel you can see is just kind of a sliver across Arnold effectively it's just Landscaping there are 11 buildings as the applicant indicated with 52 dorm style units 10 residential buildings and a leasing an office recreation building the request is a zoning map Amendment from mf-14 to SPD and no additional uses or buildings are proposed so the key issues zoning and development standards compatibility and conformance with the master plan just to bring you in a little bit closer here I wanted to point out that the surrounding land uses are primarily duplexes to the South West and East there's also a vacant parcel to the west and then to the north across Carville there are duplexes apartments and single-family residences here's the current zoning of mf-14 and the proposed change to the SPD the master plan is mixed neighborhood and on the screen are five principal goals policies that um that the project conforms with so the applicant did a great job of presenting the background just a little bit more information as he said that there are 52 dorm style and that's the key phrase dorm style apartments that function effectively as 208 individual units but they are not technically dwelling units because they don't have their own kitchens they are proposing to replace those 52 shared kitchens with a private kitchen amounting to the 208 individual units I did also want to point out at this point in time that these modifications technically increase the dwelling unit density beyond the standard density allowed in mf-14 zone however in practice there's effectively no change in density as each of the 208 rooms is currently leased to an individual household this will not change with the new 208 individual dwelling units with their own kitchens the development standards um you can see side by side is effectively the only thing that is happening is the density is changing the base zoning of mf14 is being carried through on everything else other than the density the SBD handbook that the applicant prepared provides assurance that future renovation and Redevelopment of the site will be nearly identical to what exists currently it provides for little flexibility in the design and development standards essentially again the property will function no differently than it has and will continue to serve 208 low-income households with preference for seniors in the location of existing buildings sidewalks and parking lots and service areas will remain unchanged here are the recommended findings staff can make all findings there's the analysis on the screen and here's the recommended motion I'm available for questions thank you so much [Music] no disclosures commissioner Armstrong no disclosures commissioner Dracula you know disclosures Commissioner of Illinois I visited the site Mr Johnson no disclosures commissioner belto no disclosures and will now open up public comments do we have any requests to speak to speak we did not receive any correspondence voicemails or requests to speak forms and do not have anyone via Zoom that would like to speak see none will close public comments and come back to the commission for questions commissioner Johnson sure um question for the applicant um first of all like the project like the thing there I guess the question I have and it's maybe not so much one for our findings but just one in general if you have 208 currently occupied uses is there a plan in place for the temporary relocation as you're remodeling I got the same question two days ago you might have yeah so so uh HUD um has pretty strict rules on how you do Renovations of deferred maintenance buildings uh yeah the biggest one is that the developer owner can't keep a resident temporarily displaced for more than 11 months a lot of various bad things happen and so HUD monitors our entire renovation uh and our relocation so yes we're not going to keep residents in the building it'll be a phased Redevelopment right now it's looking like we'll take two to three buildings at a time the residents will go to uh hopefully if we can if we can coordinate it the right way one location the unit that they go to temporarily has to be at the level that they were at and the landlord takes all of the costs so the moving costs the real you know moving your cable contract the resident pays no additional rent they continue to pay their rent and then they're relocated back at the landlord's cost it's all part of the development there's a third party we will use a national uh HUD certified temporary relocation company that is very experienced in senior specifically but all of those costs are are run through the development and HUD monitors on a monthly basis that relocation okay thank you I appreciate that breakdown that was basically related to the one public comment that we got in our expectations yeah we've met with the residents and yeah it's a lot of education but yeah okay thank you appreciate that yep thank you hi um currently how many occupants are per bed are there per bedroom and how many one okay so it would it be capped at one yep with this chain okay see they wouldn't be able to have like a spouse or a apartment preference um limits it to one uh we'll also go through the low income housing tax credit program to fund this renovation and so there will be a Laura in place in place on the property that's a land use restriction agreement okay that'll be specific to a senior preference which will also limit it to one resident in a unit okay okay so really nothing does change that yeah yeah okay thank you do we have discussion or emotion Mr chair Mr Johnson I'm prepared to make a motion please thank you scroll back in case spell dc23-0056 uh based upon compliance with the applicable findings I moved to recommend that city council approve the zoning amendment by ordinance I can make all the findings and I do want to thank staff for working on this relatively unique solution for this situation so appreciate that great we have a motion and I'll just check out that this is a great project I appreciate you bringing this forward do we have a second commissioner about a second all those in favor aye any opposed okay the motion carries unanimously thank you so much okay we'll Now open up uh case number item number five which is case number [Music] lvc23-00058 1565 Plumas Street town homes good evening Gabe whitler Odyssey engineering present in 1565 pluma Street Townhomes this is a tenant map application for uh 17 units of single family attached product plan here with uh showing the the building configurations you'll see there's six buildings with multiple units in in each building uh visiting a map on the left the site is at the southwest corner of Mount Rose and Plumas um there's an overlay here on the right side that shows the site plan overlaid on a relatively current uh aerial photo again giving you some context of how the how the project fits into the neighborhood the project parcel is just shy of of one acre it's highlighted here on the master plan the designation is a mixed neighborhood for this area that's the orange you'll see that to the north and west there's a some mixed use designations and then as you get farther east and south it switches to single family it's kind of a key element that we have commercial uses to the North and then it transitions into a single family to the South so as an infill project this is kind of you know maybe a Target density to to transition from commercial to to standard single family residential at the little higher density this is the zoning designation it's currently zoned mf14 multi-family you'll see the properties to the South and and the East are have the same designation as well um with the professional office to the north and some neighborhood commercial to the West the uses to the north and west are currently commercial you'll find some appear to be older residential style but they've been converted to commercial uses then uh interestingly enough the properties of the South several of them you'll see have multiple addresses although they also appear to be you know a single family style property but given the fact they have multiple addresses it appears they're being used as a multi-tenant type so this is kind of a good infill fit for switching from commercial into the typical single family with uh with a multi-family style uh density product excerpt from from code just to give you some reference I tried to make this point to the NAB and they took it that I was maybe I'm annoyed by the public hearing process all I was trying to say is that we're we're here to request a tentative map for 17 units so that these can be for sale units the same product in this zoning could come forward as multi-family and go straight to building permit that's that's all I was trying to relay there so we're here to request a tandem map for 17 units it does sound odd when you have one acre parcel with 17 units on it and you're in an mf-14 zoning but that's because uh code already allows for a density bonus um density increases are allowed projects with small unit size and multi-family districts as follows and so we fall under B2 here we're just shy of 1400 square feet average unit size so code affords a 30 density increase so that's how we get to 17. we're requesting a zone change or a zoning density increase it's just a straight code um allotment that's already in place I like to point out the purpose of the mf-14 district it's intended to accommodate single-family residential development and low density multi-family residential developments such as duplexes triplexes fourplexes town homes and multi-family buildings so I think that that we fit quite nicely into to the intent of the master plan and and the zoning designation for this uh this infill project uh on the rights the current master plan designation and mixed neighborhood um again just pointing out that these type of duplexes or smaller lots are what it has really intended in this area for the for the master plan designation uh this is overall site plan I see the site in the middle there I have a common driveway down the middle with a hammerhead style turn around on the West End to accommodate for fire and typical vehicle uh maneuvering function similar to a cul-de-sac the total site again is just under an acre 38 is building footprint um the the 23 719 square feet of livable area that's where you get your average unit size at 1395 square feet when when you divide that by 17 . there is a Plumas neighborhood residential core planning area overlay and one of the key elements to that is that it limits you to 25 foot height and two-story Max so that'll be part of the final architecture of the of the building which by the way is still in progress I I don't have any elevations to present tonight but that is in the works outside amenity landscape area is about a quarter of the site and then another third is site improvements for Access driveways that sort of thing so it at the bottom here you see a density kind of spells out the the way you calc and mf-14 is you take the lot area and divided by three thousand it's one unit per 3000 square feet you get your typical 14 units but with the 30 percent bonus allowed in code that puts you at 18.7 units and and we're proposing 17. a landscape rendering just kind of depict how how it'll uh look within a neighborhood you'll see the uh the scale of the the footprints with the multi-units excuse me instead as opposed to going with one large multi-family building or cramming all the units into one building by breaking it up into these smaller units attached in PODS of of buildings that way the massing of the exterior appearance of the structural should fit fit nicely with the surrounding neighborhood again the properties to the north are commercials used currently as well as to the West um the single family appearing units to the South those are the ones I was referring to some of them are are used as a kind of a multi-family type type unit you'll see the parking somewhere on the right I'd like to point this out these are based on code requirements so if you had it it's and then and for this type of unit it's based on a square footage uh calculation so you there are 29 spaces required and there are 36 available that accounts uh garages we have on the west side we have some uh guest parking areas and then you'll notice there's three spaces allotted for on-street parking currently uh Plumas has on street parking on both sides it's you know it's right at the kind of minimum threshold we'd use for a parking both side standard rtc's that really their only comment was that they will be planning some multimodal improvements on Plumas at some point in the future and that with that that parking will most likely disappear and so they just want to make sure that we weren't relying on at on street parking as part of our our site to function so code wise we're about 25 percent over part um but when you remove those three on Street stalls we will still be over part um by about four stalls so I know that to date there's been some comment about concern about parking the nice thing about a for sale type product in this scenario is that when you buy one of these units through ccnr's and restrictions you're fully aware that you're buying an excise unit with a two-car garage and that you you are have to park in the garage and you don't have additional parking on site so I think that that will lend towards a less conflict maybe with uh with on-site parking if that it comes to fruition this is the site as it lays out um this is similar to what you'll see on the plat for the the final map if the tenant Maps approved we'll move into the final map stages so we can plant these units you'll get this footprint of the building will be mapped as a zero lot line and then each unit gets what we call limited common element so they'll have their own yard it'll feel like their own space but there will be utilities and that sort of thing drainage that's common to the to the development so there will be maintenance access to those areas for common maintenance that sort of thing this is an overall aerial of the pre-developed project um the current owner has pulled a demolition permit and has cleaned up the site I like to point out there were six residential style buildings on the property um with nine addresses according to the assessor so I really can't tell you how many people are living in there but as far as a traffic is concerned I know people always sensitive to this but the the increase in traffic going from six buildings with nine plus units inside to 17 smaller type units I think the lay person will will not be able to to even notice that as far as traffic counts are concerned when you're in an infill situation like this on a in a busy neighborhood I mean it there is definitely traffic in the area but uh 17 units in in traffic terms is is relatively insignificant um the threshold I think there was some confusion about the traffic counts this project would trigger 17 peak hour trips somebody maybe confuse that with daily trips peak hour is what we use to to determine thresholds for do we need a full-blown traffic study for a site of this nature and that's usually 100 trips peak hour trips it triggers a full-blown traffic study and we're we're at 17. you know there there's a condition um from engineering for us to do a design exception request very frequently when you do an infill or you're working in an older neighborhood there's driveways and access points staggered that that are existing and don't meet current design standards so we'll give a technical summary on how all that functions as part of the final map and and permit process the nice thing about having a signal adjacent to the site at Mount Rose and Plumas is that you know that does create some breaks in in the traffic patterns to to assist with uh with turning movements we weren't able to keep the uh the junkyard in the current site configuration so um unfortunately that won't won't be around anymore but uh that's that's the gist of the of the project and I love to feel any questions ma'am thank you thanks so much yeah you have to leave all right again Jeff Foster associate planner for the record again tonight bring a new LDC 2358 the 1565 Plumas Townhomes pluma Street Town Homes project the project site is just under an acre 0.99 Acres frame of references the applicant indicated is the South effectively the southwest corner of Mount Rose and Plumas a few blocks east of Arlington the site is currently vacant there were six residential structures as the applicant indicated in several outbuildings but those have all been removed recently during the course of the last few months as we've been going through the process the request is a tentative map for 17 single-family 17 lot single-family attached town homes and Associated common areas key issues or site design and compatibility with surrounding land uses as we've zoomed in here I do want to point out the applicant did as well but the parcels to the north are all offices to the West you have a commercial including a coffee bar and I think it's Wild Onion Pizza place to the South you have a duplex and some single-family residences and to the east across Plumas you have a single family residence zoning is mf-14 and there is the Plumas neighborhood residential Corps planning area overlay that has a couple of requirements that the applicant indicated and I will touch on those in a minute as well here's the master plan land use mixed neighborhood um a handful of policies and goals and whatnot that the project lines up with so as far as site design goes there is a 30 density bonus that is allowed for an average size less than 1400 square feet that would allow 18 units to be built as the applicant has told you they are proposing 17 two story town homes in two three and four unit buildings those units range from approximately 1209 square feet to 1515 square feet and include one or two car garages and I did want to point out that under condition 11 the garages are required to be used for parking I suppose if they don't have cars they could do put other things in there but the parking must happen in garages as opposed to the guest parking spaces um and effectively the street spaces so as far as site design the project exceeds the minimum landscape area with landscaping and common elements it is a private driveway with a hammerhead turn around rain of fire has reviewed this and tentatively blessed it as designed they did ask for signage with regard to the striped area adjacent to the accessible space at the south side of that Hammerhead they wanted a signage there for no parking in that striped area so that's part of condition 10. they also wanted signage on the trash enclosure that you can see on the western property line to require that that the gates on that be closed at all times so that it wouldn't block access there so that's also part of condition 10. and then there's a third element of condition 10 requiring that the guest parking spaces are just that guest parking did also want to point out that there is a six foot sidewalk extension that is being proposed along the Eastern front edge of the site on Plumas that connects to an existing sidewalk just to the north there and then that effectively wraps around to the West on Mount Rose Street to the commercial area to the West so that's a nice element with the increased connectivity in the neighborhood compatibility with surrounding land uses these Town Homes staff feels that they provide an appropriate transition from the offices that are to the north of the site to the residential uses to the south of the site and it is it has been indicated there will be a negligible traffic impact with those peak hour trips all parking is all required parking is on site and staff included condition number seven uh for allowable days and hours of construction to help minimize impacts on the adjacent residential uses here are the recommended findings for the tentative map staff can make all the recommended findings and here's the recommended motion I'm available for questions thank you Mr chair Mr Johnson I'm very familiar with the site commissioner Villanueva read emails and I lived two blocks south of that site commissioner draculitch I visited the site and read and received emails commissioner Armstrong I read and received emails I'm familiar with the site comments and we'll do public comments specific to this item uh we have one I have one request to speak form for Kelly Jesuit I'm short good afternoon um I am a resident in Ward one I live about two blocks directly to the east of this particular development um I've lived there since 1981. um I have seen the in increase of density in our neighborhood there's nothing I can do about that I realize that this is probably a done deal feels a little bit like Don Quixote today but anyway I have difficulty at this point getting out of my neighborhood I exit um down Ardmore to go west or north or Glen Manor depending on the time of day depends on which street I can get out of at this point um my best option has been to go to Lakeside and go around but then of course we've had construction there so I felt relatively blocked into my neighborhood lately um so to hear that this is 17 units coming straight out with one exit out of that one acre lot at Ardmore directly feels like it's another gate in my neighborhood so it's frustrating I'm hoping that there is a traffic study it's only a few yards to Mount Rose and Plumas and if you've had the pleasure lately of trying to go north or south at that intersection it's a headache and I can see they said 17 um exits a morning and afternoon well I don't see that as realistic um I think that there's it's going to be difficult with one entrance and 17 units I'd hope that you'd reduce it to 14. I realize that's the only request I can make at this point um when it was six units I've lived there again 43 years I rarely saw a vehicle come in or out of that area once in a while there was a truck usually um it was a pretty quiet um six houses so I would say there is going to be a big increase in traffic so I'd hope that maybe that's looked at before these units go in again with one exit and all of those cars coming out of there we have no we're just increasing it significantly um we have had another unit going in at 4th Street we had all of the units go in along not row Street all beautifully done and I think they've enhanced the neighborhood but they increase traffic they put parking along that rows so when I exit to the north out of watt Street onto Mount Rose I can't see and it has been some several near misses so parking along Plumas I'm I'm really so um I appreciate your time I hope your consideration please come visit our neighborhood and um I would suggest about 4 30 would be a place that you can come and see what it's like now so I appreciate your time thank you thank you request to speak for him from Derek Cromer thank you for letting me speak tonight uh I live directly across the street so I'm directly impacted I live at 1600 Plumas Street so as was just stated in Prior years we had very little problem with the six buildings across the street there wasn't that much traffic to put 17 buildings or 17 structures in there with two cars per 17. that's 34. now if I make mistake with the single car so if I take it down to 28 that's still a lot of cars uh places to park along the street are at this point are very good the traffic there if as she suggested you come down during the Primal hours are backed up from Plum Lane to matte rows and I know that because I look out and see it every day so I'm not speaking up out of turn I'm beside myself where someone can put 17 units on one acre I realize that there'll be two-story and as she said I may be spitting into the wind but it does seem a little exorbitant for that area I can see 10 units because that would consist of dual units per five sections and if you look straight across which I've walked that distance many times going up to the coffee shop it's about five duplex is wide if you walk in my estimation and I'm not a planner and I don't plan to be so I'm not saying anyone's wrong I just disagree with the numbers I can understand wanting to put property in there and profit by that I understand that and I'm not against that I'm just against the large number because I think that's wrong for the community I do realize there are some businesses in the area but for the greater part of that local area it is residential and I am one of the only two on my street that could turn my area into a multi-unit which I will not in the future I have no idea what happens with that thank you for your time thank you for your comments we've been to other requests to speak forums we did we did receive correspondence which was forwarded to the Planning Commission and entered into the record we don't have any voicemails we don't have anybody on Zoom wishing to speak but I wasn't the public like to speak on this item I have your um I have your requested speak forms and I'm going to invite you up after this item to speak when I reopen general public comments okay oh yes ma'am sorry oh no you can't speak yes please oh thank you I'm candy Borrego um my daughter and I purchased a lot just to the bottom right of that floor plan we're right next door it's a single family home and the intention is it's kind of half demolished right now we're working on plans to build my daughter a new home to live there um 17 units there seems like a lot we we have two concerns one is parking on the street and being right next door with two and three bedroom units we know there will be more people than just two car garages and the parking there will be parking in front of our house every day we're sure of it um and then the other concern is the reason we purchased that house in that neighborhood it was before the the current owners bought the parcel and I'm sure the property the the development will be beautiful for an infill project but um there's no elevations or anything added with this and part of the reason is the cute community and the the little cottage houses that we bought the house that we bought um in that little neighborhood but um without elevations it's hard to know that that property will I mean it's going to be a multi-family unit but will it look like the rest of the homes in that community so those are our two concerns also pulling out of our property those three parking units that are guest parking is going to make it really difficult to get out onto Plumas so that's it thank you thank you for your comments if you could please fill out a request this week form uh thank you for thank you whatever anyone else in the public like to speak on this item saying none will close public comment come back to the commission for questions Mr Dracula thank you chair uh question for Jeff please Jeff I live uh not too far from there maybe a quarter mile I travel that street almost every day uh first thing that kind of jumps out so I understand the 17 vehicles at peak hours I kind of get that and it's kind of negligible like you guys noted the one thing that jumps out is if we're going northbound on Plumas the left turn in is going to get a little nasty and hold up traffic did you guys have a conversation about that or what would your thought process around that specifically so I specifically have not had a conversation about that um is like here no okay the engineering manager was going to be here and be able to address some of those issues um but a full engineering analysis was done and and was it was not deemed to have been a a concern so I wish I had more specific information but um I relied on the engineer on that and and it was not deemed to have been a concern okay it's not alarming enough for me to not support this project but it's it's serious I've done that road many times and I know it's going to stop some traffic left turn out as well will probably be a little tough but that's going to be more on the occupants than anything I was more thinking about that Northbound traffic being held up so just a thought just wanted to hear what you got to discussed if uh Michelle is Mike on Zoom s Mike can you hear us Mike uh could you go go ahead and try speaking [Music] if you guys want more we're trying to track down Mike we can move on and go to some other questions and many times back in I can no problem with that Mr Armstrong thank you chair this one's also a few Jeff so I actually had a couple questions um so I noticed that there's like six residential buildings as part of the existing site and I look like a junkyard so I was curious how long has it been zoned to mf14 was that part of the last master plan no no I'm glad you asked that question um no it goes back at least to the mid 90s but probably back even further in fact I printed out some pages from the 1995 Plumas neighborhood plan that showed that it was mf-14 all the way back then okay great I just wanted to get an idea of how long it's had that zoning since you know some concerns around compliance and sure performance and then just to clarify the proposed height of the Town Homes they're in compliance the existing mf-14 standards what we're really here to do is approve a tentative map because yeah the applicant wants to sell these as basically residential townhome units rather than renting them out as Apartments is that right that's correct okay and then I also just kind of related to traffic maybe this will be part of Mike's response when he when he gets on but I don't think a traffic study was required for this right um and was that just part of the overall engineering analysis that would determine whether or not it generate enough activity so so when an application is submitted they're required to document how many peak hour trips in a traffic an entry and access study would be required at 100 peak hour trips a full-blown traffic study would be required at 200 peak hour trips with only 17. there was no additional analysis required okay fair enough um well I think I'll just wait for Mike maybe you can opine more on some of the traffic concerns because I also live near Plumas and and it can get really busy especially like kind of in the early evening late afternoon so I'm just curious thank you commission away good evening good evening the so this kind of touches on what commissioner Armstrong said so if well first of all I think it's a great project but I do have a lot of questions um and I think this might make sense for the yeah I guess you're the best person for this as Armstrong said as commissioner Armstrong mentioned had the applicant decided they wanted to rent these units they could have rented them but it's it is because they want to sell them and if they change if the applicant changed his or her mind they could decide to rent him and it this project would not be in front of us the distinction on the renting versus the sale is to say that if it was just proposed as a multi-family project in the in terms of a traditional apartment building that could have gone straight to building permit without ever having come to staff in the Planning Commission but because it's proposed as a for sale product via a tentative map the tentative map is what triggers coming to the Planning Commission so they could have proposed the same or more or they could have proposed you know the same number of of Apartments if you will and that could have gone straight to building permit okay and then it in the packet it says this is under traffic access and circulation it says the proposed access does not meet the City of Reno access management standards and the applicant will be required to provide a design exception approved by the city engineer so what does that mean it it the proposed access does not meet the city Reno access management standard what's the issue here so that would be something that the applicant might be able to speak to a little bit further but he did just talk about that um Gabe whitler honestly engineering yeah so there's set guidelines in in the city Arena design manual and standard details for for access points and that sets minimum distances for for new development if you're trying to build uh new improvements or new driveways and just given the nature of of these type of infill projects there's offset driveways and access points that you know very rarely will meet that full standard so what what that condition does is it requires us to to submit a formal technical summary and and formal request to to deviate from those minimum standards I I don't think there's this place on the parcel you could put an access point and and meet those things yeah it's kind of a catch-22 if if you're allowed to develop and and you need to have access you know putting it in the middle is of the parcel it's essentially the same place the current access point is is is the most logical so with the prior develop with the prior um property that was on there is because of the type of property it was at the access point obviously was in a different location than this one would be or I mean I would imagine it would have been in a similar it is the driveway is an almost exact same spot that the current or the previous access point was but was it because of a single family and this would I mean you know it was as you saw it was kind of a complex similar to it had it had buildings all the way around um the access point so thank you I'm just wondering why that was it was fine for the past development and then why it's not fine I think because it's so old I'm I'm fairly confident that when this was developed back when there either wasn't a standard to be met um okay and I think that that's been there for for quite some time probably before the design manual was established and then I have a question for um this planner so what we have in front of us is a tentative map will we be able to see design at any point throughout the application process the character and design of anything that's ultimately put here um no so um as the last uh public commenter pointed out that there are no elevations in the applicant pointed out during the presentation that there are no elevations the tentative map is not required to have elevations for the decision that's not what you're deliberating deliberating on effectively um the design will have to conform with current code requirements in terms of the mf-14 zone and then specifically the Plumas neighborhood over overlay that limits it to 25 feet along with a minimum roof pitch so um and that was actually one of the things in the Plumas neighborhood plan uh document that goes back to the mid 90s that there was the the neighborhood at the time wanted projects that came in uh at a higher density like this particular project to match the character of the area in terms of the the the the lulken feel of the residential the residences the single-family residences so that was actually one of the reasons or that was the reason that they stipulated the 25 foot two foot sorry two-story 25 feet maximum height as well as a minimum roof pitch so that you wouldn't get traditional kind of flat roof block type apartment buildings they wanted the apartment buildings to look like residences but as far as like the cottage look or the you know old-timey kind of aged neighborhood look we really it's not in our findings we don't really get a say on no but I can assure you that the building permit plan reviewers will make sure that it meets the code requirements um and also the Plymouth neighborhood requirements okay thank you Mr Johnson can I jump in on that would you have a question for you sure um I understand typically for articulation standards often they're based on like frontages so I guess my question is we've got a development that has essentially six buildings moving off of the street so do the code how does the code look at that because often you wouldn't have articulation standards unless it's actually facing a street so just to to the point and to the question I appreciate the clarification on the requirements the roof pitch in that but it's a in an other situation you wouldn't be forced to do that as you're off the street so is the intent or am I misinterpreting the code where you would actually have to apply those standards regardless of the fact that they're not actually fronting plumestry so the sides facing uh Plumas would be the sites that have the highest level of articulation requirement okay so even though they are effectively and actually if we go to and you can't really see it on that one you can kind of see it on this one the unit to the northeast corner that's actually a front that that unit is actually facing out on Plumas so that's the front of that unit but that's the only unit that faces Plumas in terms of the front of the building the but all all well all there's only two but those frontages facing Plumas have the highest level of articulation requirement because they're Street facing and I understand that I guess my question is what's the applicability of those requirements for the unit that's in the southwest corner that doesn't have a frontage on anything and backs up to you know those other houses so um thank you for the question I don't remember the exact articulation requirements for mf14 or for the the residential zones but there are requirements so at the end of the day you're not going to get um you know blank walls with no character and I'm just I just wanted to continue that discussion just to take that level and I understand I'm not looking to see the elevations I just want the assurance that the code requirements that are here apply to all six of these individual buildings and not just the two elevations that are facing pluma street because I think that's part of when you look at the the buildings that were there before they were each little residential buildings that worked their way back there so um I I think you get the intent of my question I would say the applicant probably if he could understand as well I just want to make sure that we're applying whatever those standards are uniformly to each structure in here and not just those that have Frontage on Plumas I understand those might have to have more articulation but there's requirements here that would be applicable for all of them there's a minimum level of articulation and character that would be required across all of the buildings absolutely yeah thanks that's right just wanted to understand that absolutely thank you thank you Mr chair for jumping in on that so we have um Mike Michelle is not available on zoom we're able to have him by phone but the process for getting by phone is a little wonky it requires us to put them on speakerphone and you hear that Echo uh does anybody have any thoughts on whether you'd like your questions answered about traffic or if you're satisfied from what you've heard yeah I mean I feel like I know his answer to be honest I just kind of want to hear the discussion was like it's 17 trips peak hour both days I mean I don't love it and I know that's probably what's coming down um I just wanted to hear more about the thoughts and it may mean if anything bounces off my fellow Commissioners don't mean to shoot into discussion about you know that left turn in if we still feel like we have any issues or could make any solves but also probably the answer is it's 17 trips in the morning 17 trips a night and seen as negligible and you know may just be something we deal with in a higher density neighborhood and that's life but so I'm okay with not talking to Mike through speakerphone they'd be Apartments it goes straight to permit right we have no say it's kind of an inevitability in my mind and right um so I don't know how much I weigh that but I also think it's kind of phenomenal because of its effect yeah I really just wanted to understand I guess the threshold requirements again for the traffic study and just have more insight into how they actually determine what is negligible versus not and So based on the feedback I received I understand and you know it's probably frustrating for for some folks but I mostly just wanted to make sure I understood how that decision was arrived at and to your point it's if if they were Apartments you wouldn't even be having the discussion clarify sort of orders on discussion and the question is built into it so in my opinion I think the the traffic issues that we're experiencing on Plumas are kind of symptomatic of a broader system-wide issue in that area in terms of just you know there's a lot of growth happening and there's a lot of traffic just generally kind of in the region moving towards more infill development as a goal of the master plan so I think this project is supportive of that overall vision and approach for the city I guess my question is um Jeff the the staff report references some RTC proposed improvements along Plumas and the Regional Transportation Commission and the improvements that they make are intended to address some of those broader you know systematic issues for transportation can you speak to or maybe Gabe if you have knowledge of those what type of improvements might be down the line or in the future for pluma Street in this area in general that might alleviate some of the traffic concerns and I'm thinking like multimodal Transportation things like that and that is specifically the the word that is used in the in the in the language there as far as being multimodal so um yeah I mean what that actually means at the end of the day I don't know but um one would hope that of course that just in general the direction is to have less Reliance on automobiles and more availability in terms of public transit and bicycling Etc so Gabe do you have anything else on there it was it's in the staff report yeah I believe we have that letter yeah so just to follow up on that Mr chairman and Jeff so it's my understanding that ROTC is proposing those multimodal improvements along pluma Street at some point in the future it's a minor minor arterial um it's always going to have kind of that traffic issue because it's a fairly primary north-south arterial in the central part of Reno and Midtown but providing some of the sidewalk connectivity along Plumas there on the West Side to get to Mount Rose Street potential bike lane improvements and other sidewalk improvements those types of things not only in this area but system-wide alleviate some of the terms that we're experiencing is that fair that's the theory right yeah yeah like I hope but yes that's that's that's the the proposal and that's part of the density increase that that it's twofold right there's the land use piece which is the density and then there's the transportation piece which is cars but also pedestrian and bicycle and Transit that go along with it so if we do both of those together in areas like this then in theory in the future we're moving towards that vision of um you know a walkable connected Urban environment yes and and um yes fair and as I pointed out thankfully the you know this well the project would be required to have a six foot sidewalk in front of it anyway but it is continuing the connection as you can see it ends right at the south east corner of the office building just to the north of the project site uh that the site block does not continue along Plumas further south um so this is just you know as development comes in at insidewalk increasing connectivity etc etc so okay thank you Mr chairman yes and one question for Gabe this image is helpful for this so there's a condition that came in here um that's talking about I think from the fire department talking about the trash enclosure in the back um we've had some issues in some recent projects where there's some increased density and some concern about um you know the trash enclosures and the possibility this photo is a great example that there's six buckets out on Plumas on there with the trash enclosure and and I'm just trying to understand there's 17 units here but it's not an apartment so it's not a communal trash everybody would unless I guess that would be the question otherwise you're going to have 17 green buckets in the back and having I'm assuming there's the ability to pick that up on the site or are we looking at a similar situation to this yeah Gabe whitler yeah the intent is to provide a commercial style uh trash enclosure with with commercial style bins so that it would get picked up instead of 17 cans out on the street or or crammed in the back they will be able to pick up Recycling and standard commercial trash bins you'd see it in the the in the hammer head so the waste management pulls straight in with a commercial bin and then turn around in the hammer head style turn around like the fire department would and exit so that it it keeps it off the public Street being town homes with all common area outside of the the footprint of the buildings and and aside from the yard areas that are limited common element this would enable them to have an association to to maintain and and help facilitate the the common use trash and I think that was my follow-up question is is there will there be a requirement that essentially part of your fees go to the fact that it's a communal trash situation or you know and that that would be however the agreement is but it's not again not 17 separate pickups as a part of correct this and that would be addressed through some homeowners association yeah yeah there'll be a significant set of ccnr's establishing the rules for that that type of thing throughout the community okay thank you is that something that obviously it's not a condition that we would be looking at but the staff understanding that that's the approach and is that something that we've seen on maybe similar projects like this absolutely yeah yeah thank you thank you Mr chair thank you Commission thank you chair um I just I think it is a good project I if it wasn't in the code to allow for the 17 I probably would ask that we it be reduced but I did look at the code I did double check that and it does provide um and they are within that um because I do think that is pushing it but um you know they're in compliance and so um other than that I think it is a good project but I will say I you know we do get a ton of I I just like you commissioner draculich I use that street all the time um and during peak hours it's tough but I will say for the majority of the day it's pretty smooth sailing and I try and avoid using a car um for other portions of the day you know if I'm going to grab a coffee with a friend and we're usually walking or uh taking a bicycle um so and I find that a lot of folks in that neighborhood do that so I'm not terribly concerned even though I I can't foresee traffic being pretty rough during peak hours I think this is still a good project [Music] yeah I would agree I like seeing uh I like seeing the density bonus uh being deployed I think we've only seen that maybe three or four times and I was a big proponent of that when that was put into the code um it's just a good infill project that achieves a lot of the goals in the master plan um traffic is a concern but I don't necessarily know that what is capable of being there is any better than what is being proposed um so yeah I'll be in support of this project foreign ready to make a motion please please no matter case number ldc23-00058-1565 pluma Street Townhomes based upon compliance with the applicable findings I recommend that Planning Commission improve the tentative map subject to conditions and I can make all the findings uh Mr Armstrong I'll second hi can you post okay the motion carries unanimously uh thank you so much and just for the record uh the appeals process has that any final action not including recommendations or failures to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to this Reno city council by the applicant the mayor or a city council member or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction an appeal together with the fees must be filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk great thank you all so much um we're now going to reopen general public comments and I have a general public comment from Genesis Genesis Rojas Serrano um hello my name is Genesis Roxas I came from Huff high school I'm writing too with the tips Carson and reading the Korean state of the education of the United States as a constituents of citizens who cares about the future or Nation I believe is necessary is necessary to express my destruction and highlight some benefits of I Observer by education so I think um we have uh problems with the education um more because I'm a student um I see how um um her students had uh problems and like just it's not a school it's out um I'm sorry I'm difficult with my English so I'm trying my best um so I think it's in necessary to take more opportunities and programs to keep uh pushing um more students to be um successfully to be in their classes and have more um any conclusion I think uh we have the right to be um in scholarships or um but like situations you know and difficult so like me I just have like one year I'm here to speak in English because I come from Mexico so I think it's more necessary to have more programs and Community communities and that's it thank you for your time thank you for your comments and thank you for coming out to speak to us tonight thank you a request to speak for from Juan Medina Vasquez um hello good evening everyone um my name is Juan Carlos Meda Vazquez I'm coming from high school and I want to start my speech with some phrase what I always see what they say um if you fight for your dreams maybe you can get it but in my opinion that is uh hella false because now in this um and we Community we are have um this Pro in nepotism it is um when you try your best and occasion maybe you don't got it because someone get contacts or we have a friend our parent or somebody where they can put you in a good position and it's included um this community and the government and occasions and that is have for example with us problems to the students because and if I can tell you I'm a senior right now I'm gonna go to get a university and maybe the career one I want and let us get a problem because normally um when you you think you gotta you think you are in your tug somebody can come you and get enough just because why with someone is getting contact with I don't know the parents the anybody where you can say um and this is I'm not I'm I'm asking for this because I want um to get a more opportunity with the student just to get if someone fight for a daily one Do It um if someone get I don't know years and years of career would they do study and prepare with that position to get it because indication the person with this more we just have more experience more time and they they want um just coming and anybody where they don't know anything can get you off for any reason and then I want to get more um good in that time um and then you can get more opportunities to give the opportunities with the people they they need and they like literally work with that and this can make a subsidy to a good way thank you for your time for coming out to speak to us tonight appreciate it okay uh anyone else in the public like to speak during general public comments seeing none will close general public comment move on to agenda item 5.4 case number ldc23-00052 Panda Express variance do we have a presentation from the applicant good evening Commissioners my name is David Ford I'm here representing a superior electrical advertising we're the signed contractor for this project we're here tonight to request to sign variances for a new integrated Center at the corner of Sky Vista Parkway in Vista Knolls Parkway this is a layout of the of the property we are proposing two signs one is a freeway facing sign a Z1 the second is a side that sign Z2 uh the first variance is to allow for an increase in the size of sine Z1 facing the freeway um the ordinance allows for a 250 square foot sign we're proposing a 500 square foot sign uh the primary reason for that is to allow drivers along the freeway enough time to safely merge and exit without having to pull any last minute Maneuvers or go past and get off the next exit and try and find their way back through I think there's some residential neighborhoods um this is our rendering of the proposed sign showing overall height of 70 feet and then the dimensions it would display for tenants right now we know that Panda Express will be one I believe a second tenant is going to be Dutch Bros the other tenants are still to be determined this is obviously not all the tenants that would be in the center we're just this is going to be designed for four primary tenants um this is a short the shorter sign this is sign Z2 this is the street facing sign proposed at 40 feet and um it's I don't remember what this 250 500 square feet this is a layout we've put put together a site visibility study showing what the science would look like from various distances along 395 both Northbound and southbound so you have an idea um what it would look like in and again trying to provide drivers enough you know distance to safely merge and to get off on Lemon um and that's what these photos go through here various Sign Heights um for the freeway facing sign and then we've provided the this is the street facing sign again once they get off there's a couple of other centers they're going to need to go up and turn left on Sky Vista so providing that visibility we think is going to be important so they can find the right center when they get off and not be Meandering through the streets there but again we've shown this at different heights just to give you a representation of what it would look like to provide the visibility that's necessary and that's pretty much it I'm happy to answer any questions thank you so much thank you foreign good evening Commissioners Carter Williams assistant planner for the record before you tonight is a variance um request from specific sign standards um in the journal General commercial Zone um staff is recommending Denial on this application the property is located south of Sky Vista east of Lemon Drive and west of Vista Knolls Parkway the site is vacant land currently in review to be developed as a multi-building pad site the specific request is a variance to allow a second freestanding sign where one is allowed currently and to increase the signed copy area from 250 square feet maximum to 500 and the approximate sign locations are looking are shown on the screen for the applicants showed the the site plan to go for hose so the 40 square foot sign is as proposed off of Sky Vista um Sky Vista Parkway and the 70 foot square foot sign or 70 foot tall sign is located to the south of the site generally oriented towards U.S Highway 395. and this is the renderings that the applicant provided are those two signs and then the Northbound and southbound views at 70 feet on the um freeway excuse me so the property is owned General commercial um General commercial generate generally grants the greatest sign allowance of all of our zones outside of the gaming overlay District um the code limits the number of signs to one per Frontage to reduce visual clutter and encourage consolidation of freestanding signs to a single Center sign per Frontage the highway is not considered a frontage um and an additional sign is granted if the site is greater than tank or 10 acres in size because there is a single Frontage and the site is less than 10 acres only one is allowed and the sign area is allowed is based on the width and speed limit of the street Frontage for Parcels with the street Frontage between 100 feet and 400 feet like like this site 125 square feet of sinus signage is allowed but that can be doubled if the speed limit along Skype or on along the street front edges 35 miles per hour greater the code already has a built-in Progressive system that acknowledges as the size of a property increases the tenants increase the number of tenants increases and then more more signed copper area may be needed it also acknowledges as speed increases sign needs signs need to be larger to allow for safe readability So based on the street Frontage width and speed limit the site would normally be limited to 250 square feet and this request proposes to double the allowed signed copy area and the number of signs the property is located within a neighborhood center and a Suburban Corridor master plan policy specific to signage that the project is not in conformance with are I mean aim to balance visibility considerations with the need to minimize impacts on surrounding views and neighborhood character and that needs to be analyzed in the design of these signage plans individual developments within Suburban corridors also should establish a unique identity with the surrounding development context and in the analysis of signage we look at whether these signs are contributing to the the um distinct identity of these areas looking at the area there are no freestanding signs oriented toward the freeway within about one mile of the site referring to on-premise signs there's obviously Billboards um this this would be the only on-premise Center sign within a mile of the site there is residentially zoned property to the Southwest um and that's noted on the screen there our staff has concerns that the combination of the increased sign area and the height may have negative impacts on those residences to the Southwest um unless the existing signs in the area are capped out at 35 feet in height and we already I meet the maxim signed copy area as an example the Walmart Monument sign across the street is 35 feet tall and has a maximum signed copy area of 215 square feet and both of these The Smiths shopping center and the Walmart nearby those are larger sites with um and they're able to use their signed copy area efficiently on the screen are the findings for a variance that need to be met to approve variances require an extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition unique to the property the applicant identify that due to the curvature of the freeway approaching the site there are time visibility concerns that their customers potential customers may not have time to exit the freeway after being notified by their signs this condition is not unique there's a lot of examples of these kinds of issues with our freeway and there's so we don't snap doesn't feel that this can be characterized as an extraordinary exceptional condition variances require an undo or peculiar hardship to the property owner with the strict application of code there there are specific code requirements that limit signage visibility from the freeway specifically there's a hundred foot buffer where sign sign copy area can't exceed 20 square feet within adjacent to the freeway so we have standards in place that are policy decisions made by the city council to limit visibility of signs from the freeway the property also has somewhat of an advantage with its location directly abutting the freeway where other properties around in the neighborhood center may not have the same visibility um this the request for a variance also cannot be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare as proposed staff has concerns about the increased size with its height on those residentially Zone those residential zone property to the Southwest um and generally we feel that it's out of character within the area um if in the event that this commission approves the request staff has prepared conditions to limit the height of these signs to 35 feet in height and um require a monument style sign that is architecturally compatible with the proposed development lastly requests for variances must be consistent with the intent of the purpose of the Land Development code title 18. because there are code requirements that Elizabeth limit visibility of signs from the freeway and there are built-in considerations for additional signage based on property size speed limit and Frontage this request goes against the intent and purpose of the code and to quote the purpose statement in the code the code intends to eliminate wasteful and unsightly competition in signs and adds to the quality and they must add to the quality of life by minimizing minimizing visual pollution so all things considered all findings considered staff recommends that Planning Commission deny the variance application and on the screen is the recommended motion thank you for your time and I'm available for any questions thank you we'll come back to the commission for disclosures we'll start with commissioner yeah Mr chairman um you've been read email correspondence and and commissioner Armstrong same disclosures commissioner Dracula same disclosures commissioner Villanueva I read emails and I am familiar with the site Mr Johnson same disclosures commissioner valta same disclosures good evening Commissioners my name is Lori Ray I'm here on behalf of Scenic Nevada and we submitted a letter to you a few days ago and we hope you had a chance to read it um speak Nevada is opposed to the variance for many of the reasons in the staff report which was excellent by the way there is no hardship there's nothing extraordinary or exceptional that warrants these signs without a variance these signs don't comply with the code they're twice as big they're too tall and there's one too many they don't comply with the master plan either a 70 foot tall pole sign doesn't fit with the neighborhood or the Aesthetics of the proposed development according to staff the 70 foot tall sign is unnecessary it would be placed on the develop on the development facing us 395 between exit 74 Lemon Drive and 76 stead Boulevard the sign actually doesn't show where to exit so it's all you have is you know the tenants on there so we don't see how this helps drivers in the long run um and N DOT sign much like that one we think would do better to help drivers exit at the right place it actually names the exit so that you can get there without many Lane changes or anything like that and it doesn't it does it without intruding on sign on Scenic Vistas or views from the neighborhoods there are two or three and not signs like this one on each side of us 395 in use by businesses in this Corridor today imagine the sign clutter if all of these businesses on the indot signs wanted their own 70 foot tall signs also even if drivers Miss Lemon Drive they could take the next one instead get back on the freeway going south go back to Lemon Drive and there's really no need to drive through the O'Brien middle school or residential neighborhoods to get back to the proposed development as the applicant claims there's no hardship on the 45th sign there was no hardship presented as to why it has to be five feet taller than what code allows in twice as large and as staff said the Walmart sign meets code and um some people think more and bigger signs increase their profits and whether they do or not Financial considerations shouldn't be used to Grant a variance lastly staff suggested conditions five and six if you agree to Grant the variance the signs would be Monument style unlimited the code requirement of 35 feet but there would still be one too many and they would be too big at 500 square foot each and again there's no hardship to allow that allowing variances and circumstances like these would do away with sign codes designed to protect the quality of life in our community so we would ask you to please deny this variance thank you very much do we have any other requests to speak forms we did receive correspondence which was forwarded to the Planning Commission and entered into the record there aren't any more requests to speak forms we don't have anybody on Zoom wishing to speak but we do have three voicemails would you like to hear them now please hello Judith Lockwood from Reno Nevada a number LDC 23-00052 Panda Express variants I'm very much opposed to giving the Panda Express a sign that does not conform the design uh Robert Goodman 7900 North Virginia number 193 89506 I am in opposition to the Panda Express sign request and I think it's uh it's a well-known franchise and they really don't need anything that large so let people know a a small sign just like the ones we have for you know uh who's doing the cleanup along the highway that would be enough to alert people that Panda Express was in the area and then they will find it I say again Panda Express is a well-known franchise and they do not need anything that large to alert the public thank you my name is Susan Pitts I'm calling regarding case number ldc23-00052 the Panda Express variants and I believe they should be turned down um I don't believe we should make a variance for their sign at this time since it goes against our our zoning we're not the zoning the the sign regulations thank you [Music] there's no other public comment comment come back for discussion [Music] Mr chairman I would just like to hear the applicants um I guess opinion on staff's interpretation and where you see kind of the hardship that would lead us to vote in favor of a variance for this articulate that [Music] Christian Oka Superior Signs um this is a we look at signage as a safety concern um if the vehicles traveling Northbound on 395 pass up uh Lemon Drive and they get off on stead Avenue chances are they're going to make a right-hand turn go through the schools go through the neighborhoods and try to make their way around Sky Vista and we see that as a little bit dangerous I just checked into a hotel I'm from Southern California saw a news report on the news that they're adding a an additional stoplight and a crosswalk right there in front of O'Brien so um that's that's one of the hardships plus with the 100 foot setback um when you only have 250 square feet cars can pass it they're doing 70 80 miles an hour on the highway and they're set in off of lemon so they're not right on the corner they're gonna vehicles are gonna get off on Lemon they're gonna have three other choices as opposed to knowing that this new center is going to be over about 600 yards thank you commission whatever I have a question for the applicant yes given the given the so if we don't give you a variance um your position is that you that what that the current standard is gonna I'm not sure for you as an applicant because you you said safety was an issue but that seems to be more for consumers what is it that you as an applicant um feel that the hardship is because that doesn't seem to due to the location of the go ahead I'm sorry no no you're fine yeah I was going to say due to the location of the property and the fact that it is on a Bend um I've driven that area several times um doing surveys and we did flaggings and everything um it's just in a spot to where you're sort of going up a hill sort of going down a hill and at 35 feet at 65 feet 80 feet and with the limited amount of square footage you're you really just can't see the sign you're just gonna be bypassing it okay so you're not gonna really know that Center's there until you're past it and either you're driving through a neighborhood or you're on your way to the next stop and where the word building any Panda Express signage on the building there will be signage on the building but that building is located on Sky Vista okay so it's in a different pointing in a different direction is for this topic is that as far as the freeway traffic goes which is why we're asking for the 500 square feet but as far as the sign along Sky Vista the secondary sign that we're requesting a variance for as well um we're looking for cars to be able to see that from lemon drive so that they can know that there's a shopping center there and not just stop at the Smiths or the surrounding fast food restaurants that are right along Lemon Drive okay thank you thank you for the record please Chris janoka superhero signs us I don't think this Pro this project comply or meets any of the elements for a variance requests I don't think there's any exceptional or shortening circumstance because I don't think it's particularly particularized to the owner the explanation by the applicant is generalized in nature and would apply to all freeway signage I don't want to set a precedent that allows for variant signage in all instances in the freeway I don't think there's an undue hardship to the owner of the property due to a strict application of the rule because I think it applies equally to all potential companies that are on the sides of the road and I see that this could be detrimental Public Health uh if commissioner Marshall were still here he would explain this much more eloquently um but I think this is an instance where there would be some visual pollution potentially which could be detrimental to Public Health um so for that reason those reasons I'd be against The Proposal in an agreement with uh the very good staff report that was provided to us Mr chairman I would [Music] agree please do okay in apologies case unreal do you see two three dash zero zero zero five two Panda Express variance based upon non-compliance with the applicable findings I moved to deny the variance I can't meet the findings motion do we have a second commissioner Armstrong all second all those in favor all right hi any opposed okay the motion carries the project is denied I'll read it into the record though the appeal process any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Reno city council by the applicant the mayor or city council member or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction an appeal together with the fees must be filed with the city clerk with the 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action filed with the city the city that appeal process can also be found at the bottom of the on the second page of the agenda that was posted in case you're interested in appealing thank you thank you thank you very much we'll now move on to agenda item number six which is the Truckee Meadows Regional planning liaison report uh commissioner Johnson you only have a few of these lefts or potentially you're here till perpetuity thank you Mr chair uh there's a meeting at the end of the month of May a few items on the agenda I think the two biggest items there was a sort of a workshop for the natural resources planning that tmrpa is working through which I think was quite interesting there were representatives there not only from the tmrpa but representatives from tamwa and some other water resources that were out there to sort of talk about what some of the priorities would be uh the one item that I did want to bring up there's continuing discussion about potential modifications for um project of regional significance review of charter schools that was pulled from the agenda and there is a PRS project some events subcommittee meeting actually on Monday with representatives from the various charter schools to further discuss the thoughts that Regional has about the need for a review of charter schools above and beyond with an occupancy of 500 was what the original one was and there's going to be some additional discussion about that to be brought back to the broad broader body so that one was again tabled but we'll be coming back for additional discussion and essentially it's just looking at the fact that charter schools are not part of Washoe County School District's master plan so there's no overall review of them with respect to broader Regional impact and so some concern was raised about is there a way to look at it at the regional level and the discussion is what where would that be because it's you know kind of how does that fit in and when would it fit in um and what would trigger it because it's a sort of a unique situation that doesn't meet all of the other thresholds for regional significance but does have a regional impact because it's not a neighborhood school it draws from um you know typically they would draw from a much wider area and really looking at some traffic impacts especially in proximity to either other schools or other areas where that can be so should be a robust discussion on Monday afternoon with representatives there so that's my report thank you commissioner Johnson we'll now move on to agenda number seven staff announcements Nathan [Music] thank you Mr chair Nathan Gilbert principal planner uh just jumping to item seven three um some follow-up from direction from the Planning Commission at last meeting um uh the Planning Commission will be receiving a memo from staff next week uh regarding um clarification on requirements for uh Road repair during construction and temporary construction impacts as a follow-up from that inquiry is as well um as uh legislative updates from the Nevada APA chapter uh for legislative action that has occurred regarding land use issues we'll have that available for the Planning Commission next week item seven four just the May 24th the city council did approve uh upheld the planning commission's recommendation and approved The Shepherd of the mountains zoning map amendment to a public facility that's all I have thank you Tim nine number eight any agenda number nine public comments we'll open up public comment for the sixth time tonight are there any requests to speak for us we did not receive any correspondence voicemails or requests to speak forms and we don't have anybody on Zoom that would like to speak perfect seen no one in the audience will close public comments is there a motion for adjournment so moved all in favor aye night