okay I think we're ready to restart okay thank you uh so we are picking back up on item four approval of minutes uh from the regular City of Reno planning commission meeting on March 20th 2024 uh my understanding is that Sylvia was not in attendance so she will be sorry commissioner villain noo is not in attendance so she will be abstaining do we have any other abstentions or questions commissioner commissioner VTO same exstension okay thank you commissioner VTO uh commissioner M I'd like to move to approve the minutes okay have a motion I'll entertain a second commissioner rer second we have a motion in a second all those in favor I I I motion passes uh closing item four we'll move on to item five public hearings any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard will need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary alternatively you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of the meeting uh we'll begin with item 5.1 LDC 2437 Gentry conditional use permit and we'll begin with a presentation from City staff can you turn your mic on please on thank you yeah can you start over please sorry for the record this is Leah picotti associate planner with the City of Reno development services and this evening I am presenting an application for a conditional use permit for outdoor storage at 85 Gentry Way the subject site is 1.32 acres and you can see it highlighted on the screen there in yellow it is um located near the intersection of gentry in Virginia it's just one property over from being on Virginia so it is addressed off of gentry that is just uh Southeast there of the pepper mill and Northeast of Moana Park and Stadium here you can see the zoning District in all the surrounding zoning districts is mixed juice Urban when we looked at this request to reestablish the non-conforming use of outdoor storage in the mixed juice Urban zoning District the key issues that we analyzed here were the overall site design compatibility with surrounding developments and surrounding uses conformance with Reno municipal code and conformance with reimagine Rena master plan here you can see the overall site design and it's a little hard to make out up there but basically what you're looking at is in the center of the screen there in that dark gray area that is the existing access easement for the house and for the um an existing telecommunication facility that's on the corner of the property up there and the rest of that dark area is what would be proposed as the outdoor storage area you can see to the left hand side of that the existing house and again that uh telecommunication facility up there in that corner and then on the other side of the gray area is an existing parking lot uh that is paved it will need to be striped and then adjacent to that is Gentry we have several conditions of approval on this as it is a non-conforming use but basically we're asking that the storage be restricted to the 15,000 square ft site that's shown there on the plan that we maintain that access easement for access to the residents and to the telecommunication Tower there are two existing cargo container shipping container type structures on the property that do require a permit and they will need to be permitted that gray area shown on the site plan will need to be paved prevent debris and everything else from coming out into the street the existing parking lot in the front adjacent to Gentry will need to be striped and then there is existing Landscaping along Gentry you can kind of see it in that Island up there we just need to make sure that all of the irrigation is properly working for that and that that is being maintained and then condition 12 is that there is a freestanding sign located on the property that's been abandoned for quite some time per Reno Municipal Code they need to remove that within six months it's been over that and so as a condition of approval of this we are requesting that they either permit that sign or remove it within 30 days of a decision by the Planning Commission regarding compatibility with surrounding development and uses I wanted to show you guys this aerial of the area because I think it's important to understand what we see in this area currently and the uses that are trending in this area so you can see up in the corner there the pepper mill and you can see um those hotels I believe it's like the Vega Bond and other ones located right there by Virginia and then you can see the Highlight the parcel highlighted in blue and what we see a lot of in this area is mobile um mobile home uses we have a lot of mobile home parks in this area and what we're seeing this trending toward is high density residential apartment complexes so we do have two that have been permitted in this area here in the last few years and as this area continues to be approved being that there's no um maximum density in this area we believe we're going to see more of those apartment complexes and then with that we'll see more commercial uses service uses and employment type uses coming into the area so here's just a little bit closer look at the compatibility of surrounding development and uses you can see again the parcel in question is highlighted there in blue along Virginia Street right in front of that we have two auto repair facilities and then we have a grocery store Market type business there on the corner um a catac corner from that there's a restaurant I think it's a Wendy's with a drive-thru and then we have an auto repair kind of directly across the street on Gentry to the east of the property directly to the east we have a 47 unit apartment complex and then the Triumph dealership is right there and then we have another apartment complex that's fairly recently developed with 43 units we do have one existing outdoor storage use at on Gentry and I did point it out there for you um kind of on the bottom of your screen there so here regarding compatibility um the whole site has an existing chain link fence around it except for the area with the parking there and we are asking as a condition of approval that they install slats throughout that 6ft chain link fence to kind of help screen the area uh in addition where I have it highlighted in yellow up there the applicant is going to install a 5 foot wide landscape buffer with dense Evergreen hedge 5et in the time 5et in height at the time of planting that'll just mitigate some of that visual impact off of Virginia Street and also for the Neighbors of that 47 unit apartment complex regarding conformance with the master plan this is kind of a tough one and I know you guys haven't seen this before but we came up with this idea of creating a temporary conditional use permit where this would be good for a period of 5 years in this case so when we looked at the master plan we have some conflicting policies here so uh policy 2.2a calls out that we prioritize locations for infill and Redevelopment and the places that we want that based on the master plan is downtown and Convention Center Regional centers which this is right smack in between um Innovation areas Redevelopment districts which this is also in one of those Redevelopment districts and it's also in the urban Corridor so this is really an area where we want to see that infill and Redevelopment and it's probably not somewhere where we really want to see outdoor storage on a long-term basis we also have a master plan policy that says that we continue to identify new ways to reduce barriers and uh streamline this for for new businesses so in this case we came up with this idea to apply a condition that would basically make this temporary for a period of 5 years this will allow the applicants to store their equipment there um while they figure out if this is a business that's going to work for them and then find an alternative location within five years we feel that when we're looking at the development in this area that we're going to see some more of that highdensity residential we're going to see more infill we're going to see more of those commercial uses and those service oriented uses those employment uses in this area what we're not going to see more of is industrial uses in this area so we hesitate to um to approve that on a permanent basis which is why we added condition number 14 there here are the conditional use permit recommended findings staff did look at these overall we did find that it's reasonably compatible with the existing uses and existing development in the area uh there are existing public services and facilities and it's not going to be detrimental to public health safety or welfare so staff was able to make all of the findings that concludes my presentation the recommended motion is on the board I believe the applicant does not have a presentation but is available for questions should you have any thank you thank you Leia appreciate it um so because the applicant doesn't have a presentation uh I'll just move it back to the commission for disclosure uh commissioner VTO will you please start commissioner VTO I uh familiar with the area and I spoke with an interested party from one of the neighboring hotels and casinos commissioner rorer no disclosures commissioner Basera uh read through the materials familiar with the site commissioner mun noce closures commissioner Bill and W familiar with the site uh commissioner Armstrong familiar with the site um with that we will now move to public comment I have no request to speak forms Michelle is anyone wishing to speak via Zoom there's no one on Zoom we did not receive any voicemails no correspondence and no request to speak forms okay uh anyone in the chambers is wishing to speak on this item okay seeing none uh we'll close public comment and open up to the Commissioners for questions of the staff or applicant sure uh perhaps for Leah thank you chair um I noticed that the NAB meetings were cancelled the ones that this was assigned for and in that same vein there was indication that there was no public comment but it's kind of difficult maybe to share public comment if those are usually like the main avenues for folks to share a comment uh outside of those Avenues did did did folks receive uh public input and was that public input considered thank you um for your question Leah pakati for the record so while the NAB meetings were cancelled they're not necessarily a requirement for this type of application um per our standard noticing procedure we did send out noticing to uh well courtesy notices and hearing notices to all Property Owners within 700 50 ft of the property in addition we ran our legal ads and we posted the property with a hearing notice had we had any interest in this project coming from the neighbors we probably would have had them do some sort of meeting on site in lie of the NAB but in this case we received no public comments so we didn't require that okay and just follow up if I may sure it's kind of a separate note um you mentioned that the cup is it a temporary CP for 5 years um just just for my understanding and perhaps the other Commissioners um how did you arrive at five years like why not two and a half why not four it was in discussions with the applicant that we came up with five years that was what they said they needed oh five years so so would another applicant receive five years are we setting like that as the standard or would it be different for other folks it could be different based on any application okay great thank you Leah I don't want to forget about commissioner villanua on Zoom do you have any questions at this time uh yeah I do have a question uh so Leah this uh this application it's non-conforming um and that is can you explain to me a little bit about why it's non-conforming and and U whether or not it can fit into the land use uh code or if it does fit into land land use code can you dive into that a little bit for me so I can understand absolutely um thank you for your question commissioner vova so this property is located in the mixed use urban zoning district and outdoor storage is allowed in the mixed juice Urban zoning District but only in specific Des specific designated areas and with your staff report you received a map that shows uh where those areas are and what zoning does allow for it so while we do allow it in the mixed you seran zoning District we just don't specifically allow it in this location which is why it's considered a non-conforming use and again um this Pro this property has been used commercially for many many many years and we don't necessarily have all of the business licenses to show what all has been approved here but we can definitely say that this use has been that that outdoor storage has been happening on this property rather it's an accessory or a primary for many many many years which is why the applicant was able to come back in and request that that non-conforming use be reestablished through the approval of a conditional use permit for the outdoor storage what type of outdoor storage is it that they are anticipating is it like uh like those large pod what are they shipping containers or is it Vehicles is it what is it exactly so approval of this permit would allow any type of outdoor storage specifically there's a company right now called Snow Lion and they deal with um snow removal equipment that's what they would like to have there all right no question no further questions right now thank you uh any other questions from the commissioner seeing none do we want to move into discussion or perhaps entertain a motion I I do have some more questions um if I yeah absolutely go ahead commissioner Villa so Leah for staff on behalf of Staff when you were looking at the application um you guys did determine ultimately that this doesn't really make sense uh for long-term outdoor storage so so what happens after the five years I see the condition says that there's no extensions that seems set in stone no extensions so what is it what what's the next I mean are we just are they going to sell the property I mean it seems bit arbitrary in the sense of like we chose five years and then we'll figure it out from there it doesn't seem like we have long-term Solutions can you just dive into that for me a little bit yes absolutely Leah picotti for the record again um I would have to defer what the long-term solution is to the applicant but I can tell you that From staff's perspective it it was um it was difficult on this one to to make the findings and we felt that while it may be an appropriate use right now for that area it it may not ultimately be appropriate long term now one of the things that would normally be required with outdoor storage would be a solid block wall we didn't condition that the applicant put in install a solid block wall because we don't necessarily want those types of uses permanently in this area although again we have conflicting master plan policies where they say you know let's let's figure out creative ways to help these businesses get started and then at the same time you know know we have to prioritize infill and Redevelopment specifically in this area so as we analyze this project we sort of weighed those two competing policies and what we came out with was the potential for a temporary conditional use permit we spoke with the applicants about it we talked about three years we talked about four years we talked about five years and ultimately they requested five years um at the end of that five years so if this is approved today that expiration will be tied to the business license so that's how we'll monitor it through the through the next 5 years um at the end of five years I'm not sure what the plan is but I can tell you that the property has been uh owned by the same family for a very very very long time so I think that they they understand that this use would only be allowed for a fiveyear period And I think that they may have plans to move forward with something different after 5 years but I would have to defer to the applicants on that okay thank you um no further questions uh whenever chair is or whenever um yeah whenever the chair is ready to move into discussion or continue discussion I can chime in at that point sounds good do we have any follow-up questions uh commissioner Basera sure uh it could be for Leah or the applicant and and and I don't want to belabor it but I'm just curious why three years wouldn't work like 5 years is not temporary um I mean it is in the that it will eventually arrive um but I'm a big fan of shortening the feedback loop and and what what would people gain in the additional two years as opposed to from 3 to 5 years that you wouldn't know in those first three years if something was working or not so I'm G to turn that uh question over to the applicant but I do want to point out that it's absolutely under the purview of this commission to make modifications to those to those conditions of approval so if the Planning Commission does feel that a different time frame would be more appropriate absolutely great thank you Leah hey good evening good evening Commissioners uh for the record Ryan Sims Axion engineering um the the I guess their tenant um of the applicant in this case Snow Lion um ended up in this spot uh they lost their lease on their previous location that they were storing equipment on and through a uh friendship with the owner of the Asian market next door uh identified that maybe this was a good spot to to put that equipment so they went ahead and did that and then as you can read in the staff report uh through the business license process it was identified that it was a non-conforming use so uh the decision was made to submit this application uh in order to continue to store their equipment there um from what I understand they recognize that this is not the ideal location for storing uh snow Mak or snow removal equipment uh as far as I know they are you know actively or less actively looking for another site to store this equipment um but yeah five years was kind of identified as uh they're they're looking at involving municipalities and agencies in the use of this equipment so they're right now you know on a sales pitch to try to get OT or calr or somebody to um you know take a serious look at their equipment so 5 years seemed reasonable for them to try to get a foothold with those types of agencies uh those procurement processes with those guys are long uh often years long um and yeah with the economic conditions currently um you know they just felt that 5 years was was reasonable to either you know be successful and find a new spot or just find a new spot or um you know to figure out what they want to do so hopefully that answers that question it definitely provides some insight thank you so much and I'll have a followup to Leah on that if I may yeah go ahead it's kind of related to the conversation we're going to have in a few minutes with uh Angela and team but uh where we discussed in the last couple meetings where there was a data center uh District identified because of a trend and this this one reminds me of a case brought to us not to Longo with a couple young gentlemen who were looking to store uh snowmobiles or plowing machinery and so forth right it seems like there's a trend there too do we do you know if we have a district identified or a region and what those might be and if not perhaps that's something for discussion later this evening or feedback for that title 18 cleanup um I thank you for your question Leah picotti for the record I don't know that we have um a district specified for that use but definitely that use is primary outdoor storage which we run across all the time and we do have designated areas within the city that we allow that there are I think five or six zoning districts that allow for it and again mixed juice Urban allows for it just not in this location so we do have areas throughout the city that that require it outdoor storage is um one of those uses where we want it screen we want it clean we need access we need it paved so conditional use permits are required in several instances without outdoor storage because it's just one of those more I necessarily want to call it a high intensity use but it's a use that requires a little bit more of us looking at it before it gets approved so I hope that answers your question yeah it does thank you any additional followup questions I had a question actually for the applicant just related to to um the 5 years so you had mentioned they were kind of looking actively for for other leases is that sort of a contingency or is is the plan right now that if we were as a body to approve this it would enter in to a 5-year lease on that property and commit to being there for 5 years because my concern I guess would be we entitle it for 5 years but then in a year they find another spot and then they leave and then it's just you know it's entitled to this use for 4 years that's not really productive so is the intent enter a 5-year lease are they going to be like year to year is it shorter than 5 years you know um actually I can't really speak to that um from what I know they have had little luck in finding another location um up until now knowing that with the business license issues you know they were actively looking for a place to go um so I don't know if there's any commitment to stay for 5 years the use is very passive the equipment is there they don't conduct sales there basically it's once in a while though a truck will come and get a piece of equipment and leave um maybe for a you know a trial or something and then bring it back but it's you know once in a while there's there's movement on the site um as far as at the end of the five years the owner I don't think has any plans um you know for development or sales or or anything like that so um as far as I know they they have no plans for development at this time thank you appreciate it uh any additional followup or do we want to move to discussion okay discussion sure uh commissioner worm yeah I think this is an interesting case um I would say that the long narrow nature of the parcel makes it hard to do a lot of development especially like a multifam that seems to be where the indication of the future land use could be um I I can support this project because it's got a telecommunications facility it has had outdoor storage this is just a continuation of a discontinued use that might have been I don't know when the most recent use of outdoor storage was in that location and I actually commend staff because I think that the 5year cup is a creative approach to solving this problem and it's like an incubator for this business so that's a good thing for Reno thank you sure uh commissioner Villa didn't want to forget about you on Zoom did you have anything for discussion yeah um I I also think it is a creative solution it is definitely solution oriented um I think five years is too long I I understand the need to I mean to to want to help this business it's I my concern is the location there's that's very much near a major thoroughfare we there's a lot of traffic there um we you know whenever whenever we do get tourists or visitors to the site uh it's you know Virginia Street and through that area um it's going to be an area where a lot of people um kind of have their eyes on so I do have concerns about that um I also I mean I think there's a lot of Grill happening in that area and we want to make that available at the same time I it is you know it is a private property and this is um this is the way that um the owner is trying to make um make available his um space for someone who needs it and so I think the solution um is good temporarily um I think five years is too long um I would be open to three years um just because of that site in particular it it's really not a not uh great for the character of that neighborhood in that area um I think um I just don't think it fits well it certainly isn't um conforming um and despite the you know I think staff mentioned um the competing policies I think if we really do a you know a deep dive into some of the policies we'd find that this site this um outdoor storage really isn't um great for the site so I'm open to approving this with the modification uh from five to three years um just because you know I'd hate to say no to something like this when it does appear that they they are in need of the site uh to continue their business but you know I think I just think five years is too long commissioner mun can I ask a question real quick of Staff sure uh Leah I'm just curious if um if this property say uh in 3 years two years four years came up uh and they came back to us saying they wanted to sell it because they were going to build something on it would the city have any problem uh doing something to amend this uh cup or getting rid of it all together so that they can go forward and and change the property of something else if available yes thank you for your question Leah picotti for the record um it it would not affect that because this is specific to that outdoor storage use and if they said we just want to scrap that conditional use permit we're going to move on with a new development they could do that without amending it okay thank you uh commissioner berer great thank you chair uh hey Leah um I agree with both uh commissioner villanua and RoR Meer um creative solution love it uh think like commissioner V NOA it it's a little too long for for my liking I would even go as far as seeing it for one year and here's kind of my rationale behind it uh from what we heard uh from the applicant uh there isn't much motivation for the person to look or maybe they are but what I'm hearing is that there isn't much traction there and that there isn't much sales or activity going on so if we extend it for 5 years uh I think we're saying uh it's okay to move slow and um 3 years is still a little too long um I think that people should know within one year if things are working or not but to counter that as well I also heard from you in our earlier discussion that there's plenty of areas that are kind of designated for this kind of uh uh business and so what I'm hoping is that uh we change this to one year or three with commissioner villan NOA and also suggest that they work with staff to find you know to point them in the right direction of where these resources or places are that are more suitable for this location so I'm a yes if it's one year that's where I'm leaning thank you and um just to point out Leo picotti again for the record um I have been working with Snow Lion for probably about a year and a half um before they applied for their conditional use permit these guys had a lot of uh a lot of obstacles in their way and that that brought them to requesting a conditional use permit um of course it's under the perview of the commission to make changes to those conditions of approval but I do want to assure you that we have been working with this applicant for a long time trying to find another another option here and so if I may and um chair just follow up yeah it's fine with that what what have been the obstacles in finding a place if based on your own comment earlier there's plenty of districts that accommodate this type of business I would have to defer to the applicant about what those obstacles are I just know from Snow Lion what they told me um about the cost of moving this equipment because it's um it's they're not vehicles that they're literally heavy equipment pieces and I think it was a difference in cost between this property and other properties okay uh Ryan Sims for the record um yeah that's exactly right it's the cost of moving and um you know finding a spot that uh meets their Cost needs at this point while they're trying to get the business started so um yeah it's it's as we've seen real estate and and housing and land costs are not going down um so yeah that's you know their obstacle there is is finding a place that's cost effective for them to uh be able to move their equipment and continue to you know start up and grow their business great thank you Mr Sims I think my last comment on that for uh the fellow body here is that nothing stopping folks from coming back to us a year from now if needed uh but I think what I like more about the year time frame is that it really lights the fire if you will to motivate folks to find a solution that's a bit more sustainable in long term uh any other comments from the commission yeah commissioner um I know as a small business owner for years uh if a better opportunity arises and especially with a property like this that is not in demand at this moment but can be in demand um I'm sure the owners of this property would come back and say hey we have an offer for x amount of dollars to sell this to be able to build something on here the fact that they are able to build uh they are able to change us at any time it's not it's not uh set in stone that this is has to be what it is for five years the five years I see is no issue whatsoever just gives them a little bit of security um again as a small business owner if I find a better place it better suits me me uh for a better cost or that's going to meet my needs um I'm not going to wait around 5 years for that to happen I'm going to go as soon as that makes itself available so as this sits right now with the conditions that the city put in there uh I did hear uh Villa noa's uh concerns about visibility and it sounds like they addressed all of that um from each side of the property so that's not going to be an issue for me so I can meet all the findings with this I don't see any issues with it as it sit so I I am going to support it as it is and we'll make a motion when we're ready thank you commissioner Munoz uh I am very much in alignment with that perspective as well as commissioner War me's perspective um the fact that they can sell as you um as you pointed out without really having any baggage I think is sort of the key factor in my decision but I also like that it is a creative solution um I don't think five years is is particularly too long I think it would probably take a minimum of 5 years for that area to sort of maybe develop up in in the like the direction that the master plan um has set out for it anyway I mean 5 years sounds like a long time but in in terms of development and like change it it's not very much time so I think it's an appropriate um amount of time and I would I would support the the I would support the uh the recommendation as is and I can make all the findings commissioner belto uh I tend to side more with uh commissioner Basera and commissioner villain wave on this um I'm still stuck on us locking this into an option for five years given where the area is going um I guess I'm not super set in either position but I am kind of persuaded that we should reduce the time frame so just throwing that out there for any feedback or thoughts I I can share commissioner Bill and WEA for the record I can share just a some of my concerns are deterence you know if we have people interested in that area developing that area whether it be multif family or something suitable because we are seeing a lot of that particularly along Plum along Virginia along Moana some of those places and um I just would hate for folks to be deterred because they see some outdoor storage and are concern you know don't know the details are concerned that they're going to be um you know there's some they're concerned that if they develop they'll be neighbors with this outdoor storage unit which you know I suspect maybe a bit of an eyore um and particularly that area does get a lot of visibility so I you know it's hard because I do get where commissioner munes is coming from because you're right you know the land owners are going to want to you know get the most bang for their Buck if it's available um but at the same time we're not just concerned about them we're concerned about the community right and that's kind of our job here is to consider um the community and what's best for the community um when looking at the findings and so I do want to support this because I think that you know they could use that assistance but I I just think five years is too long um so if we can reduce it I'd be inclined to do that commissioner worm I just understand very well the amount of time and effort and cost that goes into doing an entitlement application especially for a small business now we are not supposed to consider the economic impacts of projects um but the time investment that somebody has put in working with staff for a year and a half to get to this point to start the clock three years is going to go very quickly I don't see personally a lot of development pressure right in that location um for another use at this time I think 5 years and the life of a city is is a really a blink of an eye and you know it was interesting that we brought up the other nonconforming outdoor storage that didn't have Paving that had wood chips that didn't have Landscaping this has an investment by the applicant or the land owner with those things that is an improvement to that location so that I would like to stick with five years um but I will wait to see how this unfolds commissioner B Sure uh I want to support it as well it's it's not like a Do or Die situation um I don't want to necessarily die on a certain Hill of two and a half years six months or whatever uh I do have a related follow-up question though to help kind of guide me towards uh a solution here for Leah is is what is a year and a half typical for getting someone from beginning to end meaning end in front of us because I heard uh fellow commissioner Ro suggests that took a year and a half and I think you mentioned that as well U thank you for the question Leo picotti for the record I did but it hasn't been solely on this entitlement because initially um this came in as a business license so initially we were working with the applicant through the business licensing department saying you can't you know we can't we there's no way to entitle this here without entitling it as a non-conforming use and initially we couldn't establish that a non-conforming use for outdoor storage had been there so we didn't necessarily give them that option to begin with um we I did extensive amount of research into this when we were just in the business licensing phase because I was trying to find something to hang my hat on to say yes this this can come in here and at the same time the applicants were diligently trying to find another location and I know that they were I met with them on probably I probably met with them I'd say eight times before Ryan got involved um and I met with the owner of the property I met with the Snow Lion people we looked at maps of the city I showed them how to use our GIS systems so that they could find appropriate locations they just couldn't do it and that that's that's how we ended up at that year and a half and then they did submit but they didn't have a complete application and then they took it back and then they decided they weren't going to do it and then they decided they were and so that's why it's been an hour uh this long but typically no conditional use permit from the time the application is deemed complete to the public hearing is normally 60 to 65 days okay so this is kind of an exception to to that um yes okay and so given that and given that uh all this Title 18 cleanup and everything else that we're doing is supposed to streamline the process to remove kind of friction in folks getting off the ground around um I would it kind of underscores my point of reducing the timeline from five years to X years um and if this body is uh would indulge me I I would I would propose the three years like commissioner villan NOA um doesn't need to be the one year like like I did but um I would be interested in hearing if others would indulge that timeline particularly because we are supposed to be streamlining this process and this is an ex exception to to the standard timeline three is better one than one thank you my personal preference I still think is for the five years but I would also be amenable to 3 years I mean I think one year is too short I mean I I'd have a hard time supporting that but um yeah I'm just in terms of getting towards emotion I guess I'm just trying to get a sense of like what's the level of comfortability and and what's you know does someone want to make a motion um in either direction is there additional feedback commissioner B I was pointing at commissioner mun sorry commissioner mun uh again I'm still leaning towards the five um but if we were able to split that down the middle and go four so it takes a year off gives them another year to uh get to where they are and and as commissioner Romer said there is no big push in this area right now for uh for housing um that could change and and once again I'm still at the position that uh if somebody came in and offered them a large sum of money in order to move this forward to change it from um what it is now to uh to housing I'm sure that would be a pretty easy sale uh for the owner so I I would be willing to make a motion on four if we can get there any further any further discussion or should I entertain a motion I just one comment um I what's with regard to uh the timeline I just think we do want a little urgency to kind of kick them I don't want to say you say it like that but um a little urgency to kind of increase the um the desire to to move forward so you know I I I think everyone wants to see them succeed I think everyone wants to see them find a place but we do have to put that in balance with the community and the community's needs and you know we do need a little urgency there and so that's where I am on the threee um I think I do also think one year is too short two years is too short and is also meeting in the middle um I could get to four I really don't want to do five um it seems silly that we're going back and forth over this you know one year two year three year but um I think it is important for us to you know it's our job is to consider what's best for the community so um it's kind of my position any additional discussion or uh do you have anyone ready to make a motion commission M I'm ready to make motion okay go ahead commissioner MOS case number of LDC 24-37 Gentry conditional use permit uh conditional use permit uh based on compliance with the epipal findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions listed in the staff with the modification of four years for the cup instead of five and I can make all the findings okay we have a motion do I have a second commissioner rer second I have a second uh can I get a roll call vote actually Armstrong yes Basera yes Munos yes rer yes belto yes villan NOA yes I think we can get I can get behind four okay motion passes thank you and good luck with your project we'll now close item five and move to item six item six zoning code cleanup and we'll receive another presentation from staff [Music] yeah so sorry Angela can you turn on your we go can you hear me now okay how about now okay okay um for the record Angela F assistant director with development services just kind of again a recap this is our third meeting to talk about the zoning code we've been taking kind of chapter by chapter So today we're going to go over the final four chapters similar to final four in March madis This is the End hopefully we're going to get to a winner um reminder of everyone what was included in the zoning code cleanup again this is supposed to be some pretty basic stuff for the last three years we've had a zoning code AS staff we've been keeping a list of things that a don't make sense to us B are tough to administer um things that have changed with the legislative session that now we need to update the zoning code and some things specific to our Council that they've said what can we do to better protect residential neighborhoods and so we've we've kind of taken all of that into consideration and come up with the redlines that we've been reviewing where we've been we did start with a technical advisory committee that was a group of about 30 professionals everything from um folks that were engineers to planners to Architects to landscape Architects City staff Public Works staff and so we met um through seven meetings with that group and we got their input on the changes we made some changes based on their feedback and then we went out to stakeholder or Community feedback we held nine meetings those meetings were both virtual and in person those took place last fall where we're at today then is getting Planning Commission feedback now at this point I'm not looking for you guys to make any formal recommendations yet this is just an opportunity for you guys to provide feedback what we'll do is after we get through our our final four chapters we'll go back and go over a couple of the topics that you've brought up over these last couple meetings make sure I have some better Direction as a whole of where you want to go on some of these things and then we'll go start to meet with our Council we'll do that in the public hearing format so we'll be at city council probably later this summer and early fall through a series of different meetings again getting their feedback and we'll come back to Planning Commission after that where we will have their Redline changes as well and then we'll come back to you with an actual ordinance to review and adopt you guys are a recommending body so we will formally go through that process you'll make the recommendation of things you want or don't want that will then go back to city council so we we have a a number of different steps still ahead of us and again good opportunities for the public to stay involved okay so again we're going to start with that chapter um on chapter five related to Signs Now we do have a more Rob best text Amendment specifically related to sence we've been working with a consultant who is both a um planning firm and a legal firm signs are something that we want to be cautious that we do right so that we don't get sued on and have to go to a supreme court and find out we're doing it wrong so for Simplicity again from a cleanup purpose um we have very few changes to the signed Ordinance one of them was that we have a number of different zoning districts where inadvertently we don't allow science that was never the intent every every zoning District should have signs allowed when we updated our code 3 years ago we changed some of the zoning code designations and some of them just did not get added to the sign section so again super cleanup just something like oops we definitely didn't want to not allow signs so we've added those zoning districts second one uh we have an area called a gaming overlay the gaming overlay is typically where you have these big casinos so the downtown is a gaming overlay um peppermint GSR Atlantis within the gaming overlay we and current code allow signs to go taller than a normal zoning District so if you're within that gaming overlay you can go up to 100 feet which is about 10 stories big signs um what we inadvertently did is our gaming overlay also includes some different buildings that are not casinos and so we don't want the average you know pawn shop or Burger King to have a 10ft tall sign so again inadvertently we we did mean to do that so we've just provided some clarification that if you're in the gaming overlay and you want to use those those um sign allowances you also have to be a legally established gaming facility pretty simple okay and then in uh section six within our land division anytime you do a parcel map or a tenative map a lot of times we'll have a common area we see this a lot of times with subdivisions and so we just needed to clarify that if you're doing a subdivision Vis map where you have common area you do not have to meet the minimum lot size typically again before we allow a new parcel to be recorded you have to meet a minimum size but again these common areas are typically things like Parkway strips um or just kind of leftover Parcels that the homeowners association is going to landscape so we just clarified that no you don't have to meet a minimum lot size if you're doing a common area parcel something we already administratively allow but we just clarifi clarified it for the zoning code historic preservation so we have a whole chapter specific to Historic preservation and and you as a Planning Commission don't typically see a lot of these come before you there's actually a separate commission that is spe specific to Historic preservation so we went through there were a number of just I would say more General code cleanups um we did go to the historic Resource Commission went through those changes with them we went back actually twice to make sure they were on board so generally speaking let's just walk through what some of those were um we had some language in there that said outside experts um are allowed to provide comments in and be part of the review process in terms of their technical expertise we don't really need that in there we have that in everyday use that we do right we hire traffic Consultants geotechnical Consultants Architects um Landscape Architects so that's just something inherently we already do we didn't feel it was necessary and really it wasn't a code regulation it was just a bunch of kind of extra wording um we took out some language that had to do with findings um related to Historic Resource Commission again it wasn't it wasn't specific language that we needed it was just kind of extra I would say fluff um and again a zoning code should not have fluff it should have standards and regulations related to the process for Anytime a new parcel or use wants to come in with that Historic Landmark overlay um I don't know if you guys are aware of this but they do have to go through a zone change process to that historic overlay they do not have to go to Planning Commission so that's something that was already in our code but there was some question so we just clarified that yes they have to go to the HRC commission and then they go to city council we clarified that they do not have to go to Planning Commission to be a part of that overlay okay then some additional regulations um we had some some requirements that staff reviews some types of applications and we felt that our planning staff are not technical experts on historic resources so we didn't want to put that burden on our staff um so we took staff out of that process and we said those types of applications should all have to go before the historic Resource Commission and they shouldn't be a staff review we as staff um take in applications we provide more of a planning recommendation um but again the HRC is the the technical experts that that serve on that commission then again we had some outdated things in here we had some requirements certain things had to be adopted by a date of 2021 that date has passed nothing was adopted again if it's not a regulation shouldn't be in a zoning code so we took those out we had some regulations related to pre-application meeting so we had a whole process if you have a historic resource or um a parcel or a building you would you're required to go through this pre-application meeting where we had a separate subcommittee that subcommittee was never established L frankly it just didn't make sense um it was supposed to be kind of a a subcommittee of the HRC but it's been in code for 3 years and we've never used it so we said it doesn't even make sense we do have a pre-application meeting for all types of applications so anyone doing a development project can go through a pre-application meeting it doesn't have to be specific to HRC um again just made it more consistent with how we have been operating for the last three years and then finally there's some language in the zoning code related to cultural resources our language did not match what is in the Secretary of interior standards so we just clean that up so our standards match their standards any questions on historic resource again you guys don't see a lot of it but it's definitely a big topic that we we as staff deal with quite a bit okay next up is related to Administration and procedure so a lot of the things that we did as part of this code cleanup we really went back and said does our code conflict with state law and again anytime there's changes to state law we should be updating our zoning code because state law potentially changes every two years when we have these uh legislative updates um this was an easy one for us just to keep a list of what what are we not conforming to what new laws changed at the state level that our zoning code now needs to meet so we updated those uh we have a lot of different types of applications so you guys know you see conditional use permits you see tenative Maps you see major your site plan reviews those are all pro projects or types of applications that go to a Planning Commission we also have a lot of applications that go just to staff and so we call those like minor site plan reviews or a minor conditional use permit so a lot of times there's an application that triggers both a minor application and a major application so from that perspective the applicant says well so I have to go through one level of review for staff to review my project and then another level of review for Planning Commission to review my project that doesn't really make sense so what we have just in practice been doing is allow the applicant to kind of combine their applications and Elevate those up to Planning Commission so you guys are the ultimate Authority um anytime we have applications that are both staff level and planning commission level now we just put it in writing that yep we can combine those and elevate it up to Planning Commission for review and then in terms of some other Clarity things within our Administration and procedure section um there's things that are required um based on working days and there's other deadlines that are based on uh business days so or calendar days and so we just to clean that up made sure that we're consistent with how we are phrasing um these different deadlines and made sure that they again match state law okay a couple other things in our Administration and procedures you guys have seen a handful of these specific plan districts this is something that's been fairly new we did them years ago probably 20 years ago and then we quit doing them and so for the last three years now they're back in our zoning code and they're very similar to planned unit developments you basically create your own separate set of zoning regulations so we just went back and we looked at our PUD or planned unit development kind of standards and regulations and we said well how do we make those more consistent with these specific plan districts so things like a a planned unit development once it's approved by city council it gets recorded a spefic specific plan development is not required to be recorded we said well that's just silly those are documents that should be recorded their ordinances so again cleaned up some of those kind of in inconsistencies things that we in practice have been asking the applicant to do so now we've just formalized it in our zoning code another big topic is tied to residential adjacency this is basically anytime you have a non-residential use next to residentially zoned property we had some conflicting regulations in some sections of our zoning code residential adjacency was triggered if you're within 150 ft in other sections of our code it was triggered if you're within 300 feet so again we took the more conservative uh number there and we said let's just make it one consistent standard so residential adjacency is any new development that's non-residential coming in um within 300 ft of residentially zoned property so we just basically took two different stand ards and made it so we now have just one consistent standard another big one is what triggers a conditional use permit for 24-Hour use there's a ton of uses just generally speaking that normally if you're operating after 11 o'cl at night or before 7 o'clock in the morning you would trigger that conditional use permit industrial is one of those that did not trigger that conditional use permit and so we've gotten a lot of feedback from um Council and just from concerns from neighbors that industrial uses especially these warehouses with a lot of truck traffic should have to go through that public review process so they can be looked at on a case-by Case basis so we updated that standard and so now um all those warehouses and Industrial uses now trigger a conditional use permit if they want to operate 24 hours a day couple other areas again it was things that probably seem like common sense um related to that 24-hour a day trigger hotels obviously hotels don't shut down at 11:00 people can come in at 3:00 in the morning so we didn't want to trigger a conditional use for things that inherently we know people are going to be there 24 hours a day freestanding birthing centers another one we don't want to shut those down at 11 o'clock if you're ready to have a baby you go have your baby so um freestanding birthing centers are something through state law that has come out as a new requirement we have not really had them as a specific use basically these are um areas that are not hospitals but they're errors that it could be like a an office or frankly somebody's home um but they're licensed as a birthing center so we would allow those to operate 24 hours a day and then data centers again we've we've had a lot of discussion on data centers data centers um we allow them now in certain zoning districts but they always trigger a conditional use permit so we said inherently a data center is also going to operate 24 hours a day inherently because we trigger uh a conditional use permit for other reasons we will allow them to operate 24 hours a day they don't trigger an additional conditional use permit when they come in for operating 24 hours a day and then um another type of application that you guys have seen is that alternative equivalent compliance that was a fairly new application and that was something that came out of our zoning code from three years ago it's actually been pretty effective rather than a project having to vary or go through a major deviation if they're able to provide a standard that maybe meets or exceeds something like let's say there's um a screening requirement they're like ah this screening requirement doesn't really fit for this site but we're going to do something above or better than what the code would require so we use that aec or alternative equivalent compliance now we we have specific language on when you can use it and for whatever reason we had not allowed it in employment districts and those are your industrial districts and we said well that again seems a little shortsighted so we just added language that yes you can also use that tool does require Planning Commission approval if you're in one of these employment or more industrial zoning districts and then finally just in terms of procedures the historic Resource Commission again there was some kind of conflicting regulations on terms and who can sit on those boards um we just cleaned it up to be more I would say consistent with how we regulate all these other boards we're getting close Okay related to rules of construction and definitions this is again from a staff perspective we run into a lot of back and forth discussion on how we measure things and so we went back and we looked at all these different sections of code whether we're measuring the width of a lot or a floor area ratio or density and we said well the areas that we continue to run into problems let's clarify so again there's a list here of some of the major ones that we just needed to clarify didn't make any major changes just helped to better understand um so that staff has some consist consistent interpretation of how we regulate these things within just our definition section if you've seen the redline document it looks like we've modified every definition because it's all redlined not true um and the definitions we just made them all um in alphabetical order the way that they're in our current code is they're kind of lumped into here's all the industrial definitions and those are in alphabetical order and then here's all the residential definitions and they're in alphabetic order order so we said well that doesn't make sense just take every definition and put it all in one giant alphabetical order again not a lot of changes there just more of something that made more sense and more user friendly and then we looked at again just big things um you know what has state law changed and how is that different from our zoning code so we cleaned all that stuff anything that was inconsistent or redundant or in the code multiple times we just tried to find those make them all consistent and then a couple more things related to definitions um again just silly stuff that you wouldn't even know so for instance our definition of restaurant requires that you provide food on premise now not all restaurants are on premise sometimes you only have to go restaurants right you don't have D in restaurants so again silly things that we just thought well we should clean those definitions up and so we did a bunch of that we also added a couple new definitions um we we looked at wasow County and how they regulate child care so we updated our definition to match that we added that data center definition we looked at um retaining wall that's another one just a staff we run into a lot of conflicts with how to regulate something that isn't really clearly defined so we just cleaned a lot of those things up uh then the word condominium you guys would see a condominium if they came through with a tentative map um but we our definitions didn't actually match where condominium should be allowed so condominium is typically more of a a multi family type development um but again instead of rent they're able to sell so each condo each unit is its own ownership again not not a major issue that you guys would see but just something from staff trying to interpret where Condominiums would be allowed we clean that up couple other ones too uh let's go back to the the freestanding birthing center again state law now requires that we have a use for freestanding birthing center so we added that into our zoning code um the word amplif this was a fun one we actually Define what Amplified means and it's anything that's basically louder than a restaurant but quieter than a wedding reception think about that one so we said well I don't even know how you regulate that let that let's let's change that so we went through our our definitions and just made some things that made more sense kitchen is another one we we've seen a ton of these motel or hotel conversions um we do require that you put kitchens and anything things that you're converting from like a motel to a place where somebody's going to live but our definition of kitchen did not match the building code definition so we had a lot of people that when they were converting motels they just wanted to put in like little mini um hot plates and little mini refrigerators and we said no no no no that that's not a kitchen a hot plate is what you do in college it doesn't count as a kitchen where somebody's going to live so we updated our zoning code to make it match what's in the building code and again help us to administer how we handle a lot of these different conversions okay so that covers the last four chapters um I do have some additional things I want to go over just again things we've discussed in the past couple weeks but before we do that is there any feedback from the group on those four chapters they're definitely not as sexy as a lot of the other topics we've had but um important things that we regulate so if there's anything you have questions on now is your chance yeah commissioner VTO yes thank you um did you all consider looking at the definition of an AG grieved party for purposes of appeal in the code oo that is a great question um yes or no I think we have we we actually asked um a consultant to help us come up with a definition and we didn't land on anything that was really um something we wanted to change change so um we do have a lot of appeals and there has been some question about who's an AG grieved party but we also wanted to make sure that we're not taking anyone out of the ability to appeal so we opted not to do anything fair understood I think uh I wish that there was more of a Nexus between people who are appealing and actually affected by a proposal um but I understand and why it would be difficult to write a definition that didn't exclude someone who had a legitimate interest in an appeal so I think that's fair response but something to hopefully consider yeah and just as an example we've had some appeals in the past couple years where somebody appealed it that did not even live in the city of Reno so if you live in Sparks should you have the right to appeal in a development appeal in a development in the City of Reno right it mean it's could be 20 miles away that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to be they feel that they're impacted maybe it was a new coffee shop and they you know it used to be open space and so they drove by every day and used that open space and now it's a coffee shop so they felt they were going to grief party so I think that's kind of where we ran into a a question of boy that is a that is a tough one to Define if that's something that Planning Commission would like us to expand on I would be happy to kind of take that message forward to city council and come up with some draft language as well uh I I obviously can't speak for the Planning Commission but I I think that is very important um because I think a lot of these projects get held up longer than they need to and especially with housing projects that really has an effect on on housing so I I would like to see a more streamlined process in general um but I'll just leave that out there see if anybody else has any thoughts any other comments on that or Switching gears sure I I would like to just build upon that absolutely go ahead commissioner B sure just gain more insight is there like a for example that we can refer to or I I think the the for examp if you want yeah sure I think a lot of jurisdictions um have a boundary so we we notice everyone within 750 ft so some jurisdictions say you have to be to be AG grieved you would have to be in that boundary of 750 ft um again that's something some jurisdictions use we currently do not at this point anyone has the right to appeal anything they can they they can say they're an AG grieved party and I if I may comment on and it's it's very strange to have that be the case from looking at from a due process perspective if someone's not actually living in that sphere that area it's strange that they have the right to come in and stop an applicant who's putting in the work and trying to actually do something uh they have the right to try to challenge it I am totally sympathetic for anyone that's actually affected that wants to appeal it that makes total sense great um but I am very concerned about um how allowing anybody to appeal anything is just causing one hurting our ability as a Planning Commission to actually get things done because it forces applicants to they know it's going to get appealed they know someone's going to raise an issue they're less willing to make concessions when they come and meet with us and less willing to present to us something that I think is um more palatable because they have to know that this is going to get appealed and be an issue and I think it just disrupts the process and it makes it so our job is less effective as planning Commissioners but it also just makes things cost more because someone who's the carrying cost on a property that you're trying to develop just goes up infinitely or not infinitely I guess but a lot at the more you have it uh and the longer you're waiting to go through the process so I I would like that to happen less and I think that a lot of people that are trying to actually build affordable housing or any type of housing would probably like that to happen less um but it's difficult to create a definition that draws a bright line that makes sense and provides due process okay thank you for that I I would second that I would support what commissioner VTO is suggesting um with with the following um sometimes folks that are grieved or impacted don't have the means to be here at 6 p.m. or whatever other evening meetings um we hold for them to share their concerns um and so maybe additional feedback in parallel to what commissioner VTO suggested is that we find ways to better meet folks where they're at to make it easier for them to share concerns especially folks that would be impacted yeah y this is uh Sylvia Commissioner of villanua go ahead I think my concern with that is I feel like it would actually increase a more costly litigation because when you start saying people don't have a right then that you know could potentially result in you know Judiciary review and whether you know a court trying to determine whether or not they do in fact have rights despite what the You know despite whatever we decide or whatever um ordinances are in place or whatever the development code says um when you limit something um with regard to like due process it it could result in more costly litigation to the city um so that's just something to think about potential unintended consequence of trying to narrow the definition oh sorry commissioner RM yeah I I I am I I think one of the greater things about the City of Reno personally is the ability to appeal a project with outside of a 750 boundary or whatever boundary is determined to be appropriate um I think of advocacy groups who speak for larger audiences then they wouldn't be able necessarily to have a say in the public process and we're only talking about being appealed to city council which is a month or two at longest to get on the agenda I don't think it's an onerous process that's my own personal take on this so yeah good luck in researching this one I think uh just can go ahead commissioner VTO uh commissioner I think you're right it would probably lead to some sort of litigation but it only takes one case to make get a decision as to what is whether it's allowed or not and if you have one ruling that says these rules are okay you've settled the issue and I don't think it would lead to much litigation beyond that the city is often times involved in litigation uh on land use issues and if we could limit those by getting rid of frivolous Appeals I think that would be allow the city to take more seriously appeals that were serious and were legitimate um but I it's interesting point you raised about organizations becoming involved uh to become AG grieved as an organization they would only need really one member that lives in that sphere so there's ways to get I think to get around that for those organizations but uh you raise a good point uh both of you all do as to how to write the language to make it fair but I I was talking to someone recently that was telling me that um the carrying cost on their project was something astounding I want to say it was close to like $20,000 a day to to carry the project and the longer delays that happened and that me number may be too high but it was it was an astounding number when I heard it which was just uh that has a huge cost and what they're able to sell that product for and that's that's a big concern for me yeah and when this topic first came up probably two years ago we just for background information you do we get more appeals than other jurisdictions so we went back and we looked at just a two-year window I think we had 31 appeals I think Sparks had two so we by and we looked at was County I think they were closer to 17 we by far have more appeals than most jurisdictions in Northern Nevada we also looked at the cost that we charge for an appeal versus the rest of Nevada U I think we charge about $100 so if you have $100 you can fill out application to appeal by far we were significantly less I mean many other jurisdictions charge thousands of dollars to apply for an appeal so all of that was kind of taken into consideration is um yes the process is much easier to appeal no we don't have a rule of who can appeal which tells me a lot of people are appealing um there's definitely staff time involved there's Council time involved so it's not just the cost to the developer it's it's staff time as well um um you know these appeals are incredibly time intensive to prepare staff reports and the all the detail that goes into it um and the night meetings you know for for city council as well so there's a lot of things that would definitely I think be worthwhile to have a discussion and I'm more than happy to kind of take that discussion further to council and um provide them maybe with some best practices of how other communities Define a grieved party in that comparison to Sparks may I ask don't they have a lot more opportunity to do administrative planning review of projects that more of the projects that come into Sparks do not end up at Planning Commission and therefore because of that there are fewer appeals I don't think it's necessarily there are just more appeals because it's a city Areno it's because more projects come to Planning Commission there are more appeals yes we have definitely a lot more triggers for public review process than most cities in Nevada can can that be addressed if you guys would like to see less applications we could go back and look at our zoning code I mean I think this is something we talked about on the affordable housing you know we as a city have um any if you want to do apartments and you're less than a 100 units we require that you go through an additional process that's not normal that's very outside of normal for most jurisdictions most jurisdictions say if you're over a 100 unit UNS then you go through a a public review process but we by far have a lot more triggers for public review I I would caution us maybe from getting a little uh too overzealous uh again I think we should keep going this is a good conversation on that point but I will say generally uh I am supportive of finding ways that are practical that can help streamline these processes and ultim to your point Angela to bring us more in line with other jurisdictions I mean I think that's the key takeaway um it's good to be ambitious I like that we're an ambitious um body but I think we have to work with other counterparties that uh you know have different levels of ambition so generally I'm happy to explore those things but um I think it's worth noting that you know maybe just with what's acceptable in other jurisdictions I have a quick followup for me Angela uhuh um since you asked and since we're on a uh good Rhythm here um when we say you know bring things more aligned with other jurisdictions or municipalities at face value it sounds fine but I think I would operate better under um knowing what what other municipalities those are and how are th how is that working for the communities that they serve right so like is um uh Eureka or Auburn or some other municipality that we're trying to compare ourselves to if we are doing something uh good and if so what is that and is that what we're we're we're trying to move towards uh other than just saying well everyone else is doing it this way let's just do that um I don't feel comfortable with that without knowing that there's a trajectory towards uh Community Integrity in that process and so kind of with that in mind the changes that that are being proposed sound really good and I'm just curious if you can in layman's terms describe how these changes help staff do their job effectively you know and streamline things for folks while still maintaining the the public process yeah and so as part of this process this code cleanup we're not proposing to have less public review this is us just talking I think if if Planning Commission and city council wanted to have less public review and a more things that go to building permit by right um I would take a step back and look at all of our uses in our zoning code and compare us to other jurisdictions when we looked at just the multif family component so just Apartments as one one type of use we looked at Washo Carson Sparks Fernley Henderson Clark again as as Nevada right what what is what are other jurisdictions in Nevada doing about housing and apartment ments and definitely we require a much longer public review process than all of those jurisdictions if you want me to look at any other type of use we can do a breakdown and do some research on Commercial and office and you know any other again we've got 200 probably different uses in our zoning code so I I could go down a rabit of research and come back to you with how different we are compared to other jurisdictions um but just generally speaking by far Reno has more public review processes well over analysis can paralyzes as well and it does yep right and so I don't think we want to get there or I don't want to speak for the rest of the body uh but I do feel more comfortable moving forward just in general if we have data to support uh some of these decisions or why we're going down a certain path as opposed to just well they're doing it well okay but they're not Reno and we're we are special yeah I mean in a good way yeah yeah so at this point we're not proposing anything that we're talking about right now if we if you guys want me to look at streamlining processes happy to do it but I as staff am not proposing to streamline process May yeah please commissioner go ahead okay great I I I really like what uh commissioner Basera was saying um because some of the communities you named and you listed um I don't know if we necessarily want to follow in their Footprints but um in any case I have a couple other questions if uh if we're gonna if we're okay with switching topics does that work or is is there anyone else that wants to continue this conversation sorry commissioner rire your mic sorry I turned it off um I had a comment question along those same lines if you don't mind um yes I don't think you need to Deep dive into too many land uses that's not a effective use of Staff time um I do think it was admirable you looked into the multif family M and found those comparable or that we are Way Beyond I think that's informative I also think about the numbers or the types of cups for example we get here there are an awful lot of cups for 24 hours use in non-industrial zones that would be one that could be dug into a little further and compare us to se Sparks or some of the communities that are closer by absolutely that that's actually a great one um Reno is probably one of the only jurisdictions that I can think of that triggers a conditional use permit for 24-Hour use um residential adjacency is another one that's really unique to Reno most other jurisdictions don't trigger any kind of public review for just being next door to residential zoning but um big picture those are two big ones that are unique too anything else on this topic commissioner valto you have that look I am supportive of anything that we can make more streamlined that makes sense and doesn't sacrifice public input where it is needed I am in support of doing that so I would so long it's not unreasonable for you to look into MH by all means but obviously don't uh take a dedicate a bunch of time because of our concerns okay thank you and I just had one followup and you're going to be like what um not related to any of this it's actually to your main question which was do you all have feedback about these last four chapters um and it's kind of a more benign one you mentioned that there was a change in the a HRC section where you're removing staff from the equation all that and since HRC and others weren't part of that little diagram feedback loop that you're doing right now right where it's us and city council and so forth um did how do they feel about that change they supported it we did go talk to them twice we met with the HRC on these this Redline document not for the zoning code but just the section related to HRC we met with them twice okay um so they were in support of it oh good I think they supported them having more control um and again staff also supports them having more control oh okay fantastic just curious about that yeah thank you okay may I yeah Commissioner of vinoa please okay great so uh I know we've heard alternative equivalent compliance in the past I know we've used it in the past and is that term defined anywhere I think I I did see um what I believe to be a definition somewhere but I want to confirm with you that that is in fact what I saw um on page uh 490 NOP in any case I'm pretty yeah here it is um 18. 08.03 um it it provides a purpose it gives describes the purpose for alternative equivalent comp compliance I don't know that the term is actually defined and so it's pretty vague is that is it discretionary how do we know what is in fact is alternative um compliance yeah great question so it's it's very similar to a conditional use permit or a site plan review it's a type of application so we have a whole section in the zoning code specific to what it is um and when you can use it and what the findings are that Planning Commission would have to be able to meet in order to approve it um but that's not I don't I don't know that it's in our definition section but it's in our section related to process and procedures similar to a variance or tenative map or a conditional use permit um it's just more of a a type of application that again that in that section it defines what sections of the code you can use that on the big ones are if you want to do something different for landscaping or screening those are probably the two biggest ones where we use that alternative equivalent compliance sometimes our code is very black and white and we have unique situations where we say the code says we have to put in a six foot tall you know fence but then we look at the site and we say wow like there's a such a huge grade change between our site down here and the neighbors up here if we put in a six foot tall fence it does absolutely nothing to protect those neighbors so in that kind of a situation we'd say yeah come up with something better right maybe instead of a six foot tall fence which protects absolutely nobody maybe we have them put in some tall trees some columnar trees maybe 10ft tall so that's where we would use that aec process and it does require Planning Commission review so you guys get to weigh in to see if yep that makes sense we support it or no we don't okay and then my next thank you that does answer my question and then um annexation I did see some changes there did we remove maybe I read it wrong but and I can't find it now but did we remove review from Planning Commission for any annexation or am I misinterpreting what I I saw earlier no so the way um with our last round of uh zoning code updates so three years ago this discussion came before Council you guys historically as a body have not reviewed annexations those don't come before you that was a big topic during the code cleanup three years ago and city council said we still don't feel that it's planning commission's role to review annexations because it's more of a policy decision but what we found in our code our code while that's how we administer it annexations we don't go to Planning Commission they go straight to city council there's a table in our code that says here's what Planning Commission reviews here's what city council reviews the table is wrong the table shows that Planning Commission is a reviewing body for annexations so that's not correct um that was wrong so we're cleaning that up okay that's what that was that I saw okay um because I saw the r stri through okay um you're right I do recall that we don't review annexation okay um and then I did have one more question that I did not write down so I forgot but if it comes to me I will ask thank you any other questions comments okay so if you're good there was about five topics that you guys brought up over the last couple weeks I just want to hit those again and make sure um we have your feedback moving forward so again here's a list of those five things I'm going to take each one individually we had talked about tattoo parlors I think somebody maybe had had called um or talked to some of the planning Commissioners about where we allow tattoo parlor here's just our existing table that shows um tattoo parlors in all the different zoning districts p means it's permitted there was a question as to why we don't allow tattoo parlors in more zoning districts um specifically the downtown so again as as if as as a topic if you guys are interested we can go back and look at um where tattoo parlor use would be allowed and propose some of those changes before this goes to council for for their feedback I had brought it up so I'm still in favor uh of that approach as long as there's no uh I guess push back on that I think that's a good idea commissioner Bill Anda I think it makes sense yeah I don't think it hurts as well commissioner Basera um beyond our body was there uh public comment or just comment that y'all have received on this topic we recently had a Zone change on Plum Lane where the business was a tattoo parlor and they were in a they they came through for a business license and through that process they discovered they were not in a zoning District that allowed tattoo parlors I think they were in a PO zoning so it kind of brought to light you know where do we allow tattoo parlors we do get a lot of people that um open tattoo businesses without even realizing they have to have that zoning so this this comes up quite a bit from a business license perspective I think to um you know years ago tattoo parlors maybe had a different connotation um tattoo parlors are are very different now you know you take your six-year-old to get her ears pierced at a tattoo parlor I think it's it's not a big scary place like it maybe it was you know 30 years ago so I think understanding that tattoo parlors could also be you know makeup permanent makeup it could be other things not just tattoos um we may just again we can look at Best Practices where do other jurisdictions allow tattoo parlors okay all right next topic then is we had some public input on on creating a noise ordinance in downtown Reno so um we have a lot of new residents moving into the downtown and so we are definitely kind of dealing with these Growing Pains of we love the idea that people are moving into our downtown um but we also have a lot of 24hour noisy activity in downtown and how do we kind of marry those two together so just so you're aware our zoning code currently right now we do regulate noise but only if you are adjacent to residential zoning so nowhere in downtown is it zoned residential so we don't have a noise ordinance for downtown um again just looking for your feedback we're not proposing anything at this point just asking from a planning commissioner's perspective is this something you feel we should um move forward we'll definitely be talking about this with city council as well but just looking for your feedback on the topic commissioner velto roer go ahead uh I don't know how you could possibly enforce a zoning a noise ordinance in downtown given all the events that happen um I think part of what makes downtown great is that there's a lot of activity people moving around that strengthens the city I would be concerned with how you'd even be able to enforce this when you have the Santa Crawl or the Santa run or uh like shows in the park and things that we want to have to strengthen our downtown area I I don't really know how you could even enforce this and I'm not a fan of outright noise ordinance in downtown commissioner roer yeah I'm I agree with commissioner VTO um sound is part of the urban Fabric and very much part of a downtown experience Ur Fab uh commissioner B your mic's on did you intend to speak oh it's just out to have it okay fair enough uh commissioner villain new W do you have any thoughts on this uh I would just ask the commission and uh maybe we can ask City what's the vision I mean what do we envision for the downtown do we want to continue having housing and multif family downtown and if if that is the goal how you know how do we marry it because we've heard from residents in the past Whenever there are requests for uh to be able to stay open I think we had one a few months ago to be able to stay open till three um certain days week or Thursday Friday Saturday um certainly on the weekend I don't think that there should be any but what's the goal what what's our vision um clearly it's what we have isn't working and and certainly not the Santa Cross or the cross but maybe the concerts and the and the music I don't know I don't have an answer for you but I I think I think we do need to ask the question what what is the vision and what do we see for the future of downtown I commissioner Muno I think uh this is this is a more difficult question than we could even begin to answer tonight um with a state of housing market and what we have here uh the people that are buying the apartments and the condominiums in the downtown area are of an older demographic that don't want the loud noise the concerts the uh Santa cross they're not inclined to partake in those events at the same time what makes Reno special is the tens of thousands of people that come over for those events from out of the area um that's really what drives the economy here that's really what what makes Reno special is because people can come from as far as uh San Francisco and uh places that are four or five hours away to enjoy exactly what we're talking about right now and so it's it's really a difficult question and honestly for me personally the way I look at it is is that is what fuels Reno it really is not the residents that have purchased those uh condominiums in those apartments in the downtown area so I think if we stay with the character of what Reno is what Reno wants to be how we we enjoy The Nightlife how we enjoy uh the special events which Reno is known for throughout the world uh we'd really be shooting ourselves in the foot if we were to put a noise or or something like that to really limit those events so I'm in agreement with the rest of the uh Council I just I don't think that's box of worms that we really want to open yeah and I think some of the other just discussions we've had with some of the downtown residents it's um the noise is one piece right the noise from the sidewalks at 3:00 a.m. where people are just out having a good time but the the base from a lot of these live entertainment bars if you're ever out at 3: in the morning you know go to Second Street as a street there's several bars that just have a pounding base that go literally all night and I think that is one thing that um the residents have explained to us is you know they're fine with the bars and the 24-hour use but is there something we could do to help kind of calm um the the techno the base um Citywide we are looking at um other approaches to downtown and things we can do to help with some of the enforcement so that's something we're going to be discussing with city council and our police chief later this month um so I like I said I I think it's a topic that I know we're going to discuss with city council but just this is good feedback um to see where this goes can I make one more comment um yeah please do commissioner as someone who's lived in multiple down communities I lived at the Ogden and downtown Las Vegas I lived on UST Street in Washington DC um and so these big cities where the downtown is the core and kind of what makes people want to visit I will say I loved it I loved liviing those communities but when but there is there is a balance because when you have to work the next day and there's music right next door till 3:00 4: a.m. it really makes it unbearable and it drives people away um and so you don't want to drive people away from living in your downtown community because that's how you get you know that's how we promote walkability that's how we promote public transit that's how um we lower emissions that's how we get EnV you know environmental justice and all those things um inclusivity all those things that we care about and when you drive people away you lose a lot of that and so we got to really balance yes the economy is important and yes the businesses are important but we really got to balance that with the people and and so that something to think about um again no answer Solutions here but just some uh thoughts commissioner merera sure um thank you I I'll just kind of build upon that and what you also said Angela uh in looking into maybe a solution because I do think that two things can be true I do think that we can keep breno downtown weird and fun and all that uh the way a lot of folks uh enjoy it and I do think that we can find clever ways to reduce the Tremors if you will um you know and and and guide people towards a pathway where folks can get some good shut ey and still enjoy themselves and so forth and to that I remember you presenting on maybe it was the ad use dare I say the a word there or something else but you you had brought in a consultant um where you studied like lots of cities to see what they were doing and I'm not sure if some of that data in included like data that can be relevant or helpful on this topic like what are other cities doing uh in their downtown Corridor where it keeps it special and unique but still helps address some of these factors because I know that it's not there was a comment made um just earlier that there a lot of folks moving here maybe in the downtown corridor from out of town but that's not true I know a lot of lifelong nevadans that are simply downsizing they lived here their whole life and they just want to downsize they don't want a yard but they move downtown and so forth right so it's not about a Out of Towners or in Towners it's just people trying to find a good quality of life while en enjoying what Reno has to offer yep yep okay may may I just add one comment yeah please commissioner roer again I feel like this is not a land use that's like the wrong category for this sort of Regulation that this is in a building materials and building code this is a triple pane window acoustic wall this is in a materials solution and not in a land use designation so if that is a place that maybe the city could look into looking at sound um it might be a better fit okay two uh two more to come I'm sure to be determined all right and then commissioner Villa NOA we talked about this last time I just wanted to kind of bring it back for you guys again we have a section of our code um that deals with landscaping and parking lots and so anytime you have a parking lot you have to have a certain number of spaces based on what your use is so hypothetically let's say you have a a shopping center and you're required to have a 100 parking spaces we require a certain number of trees for every parking space and a certain number of shrubs for every tree so that is inherent no matter what that still happens um the discussion we had was we have a section of code that says if you have more than 150% of the required parking so in our example you're required to have 100 spaces let's say you have 151 because you as the developer feel that you need1 our code actually penalizes you for having more parking than our code requires and so it requires additional landscaping again above and beyond the trees and the shrubs you already have to have so our discussion last time um staff had proposed to delete this we felt it was a penalty if developers feel they need more parking we felt that this was kind of a deterrent um parking is one of those tough topics people either love parking or hate parking we typically don't get a lot of developers that have 150% more parking than code requires but definitely for some of these one-off situations where maybe you you're a use where you know you're going to have a lot of employees um so we just said well that again again this doesn't seem to be a From staff's perspective something that's really helpful and we felt like it was penalizing people that just needed more parking but I wanted to bring it back I know the discussion was maybe we do want to not necessarily penalize them but maybe we do want above and beyond more Landscaping because they are providing you know more parking and more asphalt so again collectively as a group let me know your thoughts on whether or not we should keep this section of code or delete it commissioner Ro commissioner RO with all the opinions um I would like to say that I strongly feel that this is the right direction we should not be over parking I understand that developers want more parking only in one case have I ever seen it as a good like justification and that's up at the University where there's large developments and every room belongs to a student with the car um we have a lot of parking surface parking a lot of parking lots this is an urban the City of Reno has more urban heat effect than other cities in America more trees more shrubs those are necessary should not be overp parked so please consider keeping this okay anyone else on this one okay third fourth uh any any additional uh comments commissioner Villa no thank you I appreciate you looking into that and bringing that back back absolutely okay next topic is schools and I know Kyle's here from the school district as well this is a followup we had a a pretty good discussion on some of the language that staff was proposing again we had added some language that said hey is a heads up when you come in for a building permit whether you're a public school or private school doesn't matter know that we are going to ask for things like how are you handling drop off and pickup and where's the queueing line and where the the school flashers and the crosswalks so you'd asked well give me more information on um schools that have been developed uh just even in the past couple years where we have gone back after the fact and added additional pedestrian improvements whether it was crosswalks or flashers so again we just high level last couple years here's a number of schools that have kind of been problematic some of these are brand new schools some of these have been here for probably 40 years um but again as times change and neighborhoods grow our needs for you know pedestrian safety also changes so here's just a list of some of those schools that in the last couple years we have had to go back after the fact and put in new infrastructure so with that in mind know that this is something that is um important to us as staff and definitely important to our city council so that is why again we are proposing to add that language it doesn't mandate anything it just says know that when you come in with a new school or an improvement to a school we're going to look at these things so we did work with the school district the the top kind of uh two sentences is what we had initially proposed in the zoning code the school district proposed some additional language which is there on the bottom it it's essentially and Kyle you know let me know if you disagree but I think it's essentially the same language again at the time of a building permit for a new school or major redesign or expansion to an existing School know that we're going to be asking for this information um the one thing we just disagreed with I I crossed out and read there so you can have just full understanding there was some language proposed um that the school district asked if we could have some language saying that only require these things or ask for these things to the extent possible and within the school's control it's not really a standard not something I can really enforce so I just propose to take that out but I think again um we as City staff and the school district I I think are in agreement and I support the language that they proposed any questions on this one commissioner Basera please sure thank you um thank you for working with School District after the last uh meeting um I did hear a I think this works for them I would like to hear maybe from Kyle if you can just to defin get that thing to a yes this definitely works for us or maybe it doesn't thank you Commissioners Kyle Chism was County School District um yes I can confirm that we provided this language it does work for us and we think it clears up a lot of the am ambiguity that we had concerns with so yes perfect thank you for working with staff as well yep and thank you staff yeah Dream Team there you go thanks Kyle okay any other topics on schools okay and then finally again just as a followup from our last meeting uh commissioner Villa NOA I promised that I would bring back some specific examples of what's in our code today related to setback and step backs so what I've done I've provided three slides so you can see what's in code today so basically if you have new development and you're next to single family homes or even just single family zoning or some multif family zoning again in trying to protect that neighborhood character what we don't want to see is you know a new five-story building coming in being built 5et away from the property line where you've got a a single story house next door so in our code today we have kind of three different uh sets of standards and our challenge is they're very confusing um the images don't necessarily match the wording so I'm going to go through so you can see what those are and then I'm going to show you what we're proposing so these are the ones that are in code today I've just provided some comment there in red again reasons we don't like these things that we just have a hard time interpreting um so this first one it's a it's specific to your front building setback now typically your front setback on a on a new house or a new apartment is a street so so this one to begin with didn't make sense we basically are saying you have to push the building back depending on what use is across the street and again that didn't make sense and that really goes in like the opposite direction of trying to encourage infill we're basically saying you have to push the building back from a street for what purpose that doesn't make sense um so we propos like again this this really conflicted on a lot of sites that we were working on and didn't make sense or saying this doesn't make sense let's take it out next one this is specific to side setbacks so essentially we have this kind of a a 2:1 ratio I'm sorry 1:1 ratio so um currently if you have a new building that's coming in and it's more than 24t so two stories is typically 24t and that image on the right is a good example um we are the code right now says you need to do a um a step back so basically once you get to 24 ft and your new building's still taller than that any portion of your building that's over 24 ft and taller than um you have to step that side of the building so you could technically have like a five-story building as long as you are stepping back the third story and the fourth story and the fifth Story um this in our mind was kind of confusing because it was specific to just the side well what about the rear a lot of times we have these infill sites where there's a rear and again you're just feet away from the property line and you've got you know three stories looming over somebody's backyard how do we protect that neighborhood so again we we liked this concept but um we felt we could do better and so again we're proposing to remove this finally and this is one I I just think you should read it and tell me what this means so this is specific within the rear setback and the larger of the front setback or 15 ft from any front property line portions of any building that exceed 12 feet in height shall maintain an additional 1 foot sidey yard for each foot of height over 12et I have no idea what that means we have just gotten to the point where we just don't even use it because nobody can interpret what it means yeah I think anything that reads like a GMAT question and um and not like a procedural standard that someone can understand it's probably a good idea to strike it my two cents anyway so we're proposing to remove that one as well um so we wanted to simplify it again our concern and um we added a new image and it was again the intent was to show you a little bit more understanding of we like that that one: one ratio so again if you're two stories next to your new building's two stories great 24 fet in height but anything taller than 24 feet in height we want you to step back those additional third stories or fourth stories or or just the roof line so we provided an image and then we also provided some additional standards that help to better explain what it is so one is we said this standard applies to your side setbacks and your rear setbacks so we don't have any requirements for front setbacks to push the building back but again we're concerned about your side and your rear um again if you have a public rideway so maybe there's like an alley in your back then you would be exempt from the standard and then we've also had a couple cases where we've had maybe some decks or some canopies and the code was not clear as to are they allowed to also um you know be within that that normal setback or do they have to step that portion of the building back so we just clarifi that um yes if you have a canopy or a deck or something that's popping out of your new building yes you also need to comply with this rule um and then there's there's special unique situations where maybe you can't make it work but maybe you want to do something different so we did require um kind of an out if you want to do a major site plan review to show how you can't meet this step back but maybe you want to do something else uh we do have that as an option that does come before Planning Commission so you guys as a commission would be able to look on it look at it on a case-by casee basis again our intent here was just to make it clean and understandable and delete all the weird language and images that none of us could understand questions on that okay um just I think it's wonderful with the exception why not a minor spr instead of a major spr and we could do that as well so minor site plan review is what we call a 30-day review it just goes to a staff um for review but we do public noticing um if if anyone wants to appeal staff's decision it would go to City Council on appeal so I'm 100% comfortable if Planning Commission would prefer just a minor site plan review versus the major also totally on board with that so just a clarification on that Angela the minor would include um what between the major what's the a minor site plan review is an application that just staff reviews it does not go to Planning Commission right but there was something about the public and and an appeal that yep so um our minor site plan review applications those do we do send out Public noard public postcards so the neighbors everyone within 750 ft would be notified about it there just wouldn't be a public hearing any reason why we wouldn't want to include I mean are we are we gaining something by not including the public I think it goes back to the previous discussion of streamlining right if you're trying to get more housing to Market faster then streamlining the process still giving the public input because they would now know it's a project that's coming before them and they would have the ability to comment on it and those comments um help staff to write their conditions of approval yeah I I think I'm all for streamlining but not not um uh cutting corners on on the public input process you know where possible um and I do have a question Jer I me go ahead Beyond this um you you mentioned like clarifying things and if this makes sense we we all tempted to read or decipher the previous sentence um it makes sense to folks now what you're proposing and I'm curious what you're proposing has that gone before the technical group as well and then Ju Just So we understand that like Hey we're understanding it but are folks that are needing to review the documents understanding it as well is a lay person been grabbed to say hey do you understand what this I don't think any average citizen would understand half of our zoning code appreciate the feedback but generally speaking nobody understands a zoning code including us half the time but um we what we can do is we can do some random kind of spot checks which we've done that on different sections of the code where we throw it out some of our internal staff and say use this section of the code how would you apply it um we've also done it which is some of the Architects and you know some of the other designers and say does this make sense so this is one of those definitely we could send it out and just get some peer review yeah and then the last thing is what's the what's the shelf life on this thing like are we going to review this in eight years four years zoning code like like all this cleanup all this like this is you know a lot of needed work but will I be seeing this again in my lifetime or no I think I mean a typical zoning code is reviewed on a regular basis right as we find new sections of code not necessarily repeating the same thing over and over but um you know the code we have now we've had for three years but we've probably done maybe three or four text amendments to our code over the last three years so we are always doing better looking for ways to improve I think too if we if we have a section of code and we find that it just doesn't make sense or Council says we need to be more strict or we need to be less restrictive then we'd go back and make modifications okay I actually like that it goes back to what I said I like the tight feedback loop and things change life changes you know and where we're at now may be a little different than where we're at it need to be a year from now yeah okay yep thank you great job this is villan waya um to the change from major to minor for something like this generally you know well actually depends on what it is I get where you guys are all coming from well those in favor of um moving removing the major and changing it to a minor site plan review but with something like this where we're talking Heights and setbacks and step backs those tend to be what some of the residents really care about like if we're if we get public comment it tends to be with with regard to that um in particular height is a big one and um the step back step back stuff is is just really um important to a lot of the neighbors and the community so I'd hate to take that out of the process I really do like the idea with with respect to um to that being um available to the public so uh yeah just some comments to take back um something to consider thank you anything else commissioner R just to follow up to that point I I think on something like a step back this is a pretty small case by case and the architect particularly in contemporary architect uh contemporary architecture that probably has the most challenges to meet some of these Provisions those can be worked out with staff best I'm not sure in having seven opinions of people who aren't in the design field are really the best way to make those Solutions so I would strongly encourage a minor spr I don't think it's about us having the involvement I think it's just about the public involvement and so that they can kind of understand the process um and I get that they get notified and I get that they can approach staff and have those conversations with staff um but we don't I at least don't know what that's like I've never I've been fortunate to where I've never been put in a position where I'm concerned about a development in my community and I have to reach out to staff um I I imagine staff's great and probably you know maintains Comm open communication um but I you know people work people have jobs um I just don't know how accommodating that process is and so I'd like it's not about the seven of us have an input it's really just about maintaining that public access and that public input um certainly with respect to height um so okay anything else on that topic then that's the end so again um this covers the entire zoning code we've talked a lot everything that we've talked about will come back before you after I get some Council feedback so again um this is not like the only time you're going to have input on this I'll come back and I'm guessing Council will also have some additional things that they want to see that we had not included so we'll definitely be discussing all of those later this probably fall by the time it comes back to you guys um I follow up on that go ahead commissioner baser um yeah you mentioned the fall and and so um what's going to occur between now and then is it just doing some of the research and followup of this discussion or is it going to be also including coming through public input and how does the public input weave into the recommendation to city council between now and then or so at this point we're not proposing any additional stakeholder meetings we held nine nine stakeholder meetings if you guys want more I could I could do it all day long um I didn't feel that we were getting much Community feedback so at some point let's just move something or not and that's kind of where I'm at so next steps is we'll go to council we'll probably have three public meetings with Council kind of like we did here where we broke it up into smaller bites um so we'll do that with them again they from a policy Direction they may have some additional things that they want us to look at so then we'll make some more Redline changes then we'll come back and bring it to Planning Commission so all of that those are all public meetings um you know they're noticed on the agendas and of course the um before we formally make a recommendation on an ordinance um Council will see it again so we probably have at least six more meetings before anything's adopted here in the next six months and Council may say go back and get more stakeholder input so it we'll see where this goes just so we have a clear understanding because you just held like four you and staff right you held like four we just held four stakeholder meetings on the topic of Housing and affordability okay not on the zoning code um again we have multiple text amendments happening right now that's the other thing we're talking about adus we're going to hold a lot of stakeholder input on that that's going to come before you housing and affordability we're trying to push that through city council before July 1st most likely not going to happen um we have a sign ordinance we're going to need to move forward we have telecommunications ordinance we need to move forward so all these initiatives city council has asked us to work on so there's many things happening in the process along with all these changes um but again nothing happens overnight and Council also takes a break in the summer so um we're trying to kind of make sure that we don't inundate council with too many zoning code agenda items on one Council agenda um so it will take a while to get through the system well well thank you Angela your two crew right behind you before we close oh sorry go ahead commissioner villanua I I waited till the end because I remembered the question I was goingon to ask earlier um with re U regard to the ordinance or excuse me the uh changes overview um and it was with respect to 24-Hour operation we talked about the changes to to the 24hour operation and the data centers and so how does that work with a data center what do we consider operation with the data center because data centers I mean is that with regard to employment is that with regard to just data centers operating in general or is that I mean how does that work with the data center what do we deem 24-hour operation yeah so we just created a new definition for data center so we Define what it is and we created new zoning districts where we would allow them data centers are very different from like warehousing or manufactur in and so they they don't fit your typical industrial building um we also require a conditional use permit everywhere a data center is allowed we feel like they're kind of a oneoff we want to be able to look at them on a case-by Case basis so every data center first you have to look and say is it allowed in that zoning District I think we have what five zoning districts where we allow them and every one of them would still require a conditional use permit so we could look at all the kind of the nuances of of where it's at and impact to the kind of the surrounding area so the 24-hour operation how does that play into it we we know that data centers don't shut off um at 11 o'clock at night right I mean the the very function of a data center is to store data in a building in a you know some kind of it system it's my high technical term for data center but but we know that they operate 24 hours a day just inherently kind of like a hotel we know that people are there 24 hours a day data centers will be running machines will be running 24 hours a day um very different from like a logistics Center where you have the choice right are people going to be coming and dropping off boxes at 2: am. or do they shut down at 11:00 at night but we know a data center will have staff and machines 24 hours a day just because they have to okay so yep and so we we don't require a second conditional use permit because they're 24 hours we inherently just know they will operate 24 hours but we will always trigger a conditional use permit for any new data center so that's part of the review process so when we're reviewing for the initial cup um we just consider we factor that in yep okay um and one more question would that I mean I data centers I know their machines I know how they generally operate no trucks no big uh semis nothing like that or is that something we I mean what's your experience with data centers yep and the same thing so most of them are are in big Warehouse buildings and they don't need a lot of dock doors we do allow them we did put in some language that you can have dock doors but we limit I think we limited it to three dock doors per building just because you have equipment being delivered but they don't operate like a warehouse or a logistic Center they operate very differently so from that perspective the things we're looking at is um you know noise definitely lighting a lot of these data centers are up pretty bright for safety reasons and so we'd be looking at that from a kind of a residential protection perspective of you know where's the nearest Residence what are they doing to screen the lights um those are the types of things we would want to see as part of a conditional use permit okay and then lastly I promise last question um we talked again 24 hours near residential um my question is if it's a 24-hour operation if if we suspect that um project is going to be 24-hour operation regardless of whether or not it's near residential is it subject to cup um review yes okay so we can consider during the review process whether or not it makes sense particularly given that it's near residential to have 24-hour operations yes all uses outside of the downtown area pretty much all uses that want to operate past 11:00 at night trigger a conditional use permit for for 24-Hour use a lot of the Starbucks right they open before 6:00 a.m. they also trigger a a conditional use permit for 24-Hour use so any any use pretty much outside of the downtown area past 11 o'clock at night restaurants bars all of them have to go through that public review process got it all right thank you so much also I appreciate your work I know this is not easy for you guys trying to do it all so thank you so much great before closing item six wanted to I guess it's a formality at this point but is there anyone in the Chambers wishing to speak on public comment I don't see anyone do we have anyone on Zoom there's no one on Zoom we did not receive any voicemails correspondence was received and forwarded to the Planning Commission thank you we will close item six and move on to item seven trucky Meadows Regional planning liaison report uh sure last meeting was canceled the next meeting I believe is next week so there'll be an update next month or at the next meeting thank you closing item seven moving on to item eight staff announcements just a couple of quick announcements uh this evening first I think as you as you probably saw tonight we're implementing a new uh procedure that staff will present projects before the applicant so moving forward um on development projects the staff will give their staff report and presentation and then that will be followed by an applicant presentation so mixing that up that's really to be more consistent with other jurisdictions um and kind of a kind of accepted practice so to speak um staff is working on some training modules based on the direction we received from you last time so those will be coming forward here over the next couple of months and then just to follow up on uh Council approvals um you had kind of a flurry of zone changes at your last two meetings so those included the White Lake Commerce Center specific PL District The Plum Lane properties 525 East Plum Lane and then the North Virginia Street at web Circle project um those were all approved by Council so they upheld your recommendation and that's all the updates I have for this evening great thank you we'll close item eight move to item nine Commissioners suggestions for future agenda items do you have any suggestions Sylvia on Zoom no thank you okay thank you close closing item nine and item 10 uh public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment uh seeing no public comment in the chambers do we have anyone on Zoom no no one on Zoom no correspondence and received and no voicemails okay thank you closing item 10 and moving to item 11 adjournment do have a motion so moved all right