okay Michelle how are we looking all right everybody thank you for joining us for our regular Reno City Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday August 16th item one we will kick it off with the Pledge of Allegiance commissioner Munoz would you lead us please [Music] all right moving to item number two roll call Carlos are you leading the way yes I am okay Harris Armstrong absent at this time Manny pacera Arthur Munoz here Carrie Romer absent at this time Alex belto absent at this time Sylvia Villanueva here you have a quorum I'm sorry JD Dracula I am also here thank you sorry about that oh good and you have a quorum okay great thank you all right moving on to item number three public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment Carlos do we have any requests to speak forms or voicemails or virtual for the record members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the zoom link provided on the agenda specifically https colon forward slash forward forward slash us06 web.zoom dot us forward slash webinar forward slash register forward slash WN underscore k y one c q g w j t seven w m s t 2 o y z r d n a it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter not agenda's for possible action on today's agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes if you are an attendee in the zoo meeting and would like to make public comment at this time please raise your hand lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there's disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues we did not receive any requests to speak forms voice smells and we don't have anyone they assume that would like to speak at this moment we did receive correspondence that was General in nature and not specific to any items on the agenda these were forwarded to the Planning Commission and have been entered into the record thank you anybody in the chamber's wish to speak on General Public comment seeing none we will close item number three public comment moving to item number four approval of minutes for possible action item 4.1 uh minutes from the Reno City Planning Commission regular meeting of July 20th 2023. uh Mr chair I need to abstain okay okay also you were not here were you commissioner becera so Michelle or Angel helped me out here since it probably just me and commissioner Villanueva let's continue those yeah let's continue both of them okay we'll continue uh item 4.1 approval of minutes to the next meeting uh item 4.2 Reno City Planning Commission regular meeting minutes of August 2nd I need to abstain as well I was also present or absent awesome we will also move item 4.2 to the next meeting for approval thank you so closing item number four moving on to item number five we have appreciation and recognition of Peter Gower and Mark Johnson for their years of service of the Reno City Planning Commission these gentlemen are both in the room right now we have something to present to them if you guys want to come up and speak you're welcome anything we should do speech and maybe as you guys walk up um Angela Foose for the record assistant director for development services just what an honor it's been to work beside both of you your really knowledge of both planning and zoning and architecture and design has been instrumental I think in in the Planning Commission and also just educating our other planning Commissioners I think through your two leaderships are there planning Commissioners have understood a lot more about what planning Commissioners do and their role and so we've appreciated having your knowledge and your skill set and you will be missed and I got to gush at you guys the last meeting and I I all that still stands and thank you again honestly for all the mentorship and guidance and I mean overall a service for us and watching you help uh mold the city was uh something I'd uh cherish so thank you uh I concur with all of that um I really do appreciate coming into something that I've never been a part of before and watching the way you two work and learning from you was huge and I don't think I would have the understanding that I do without watching YouTube be here before me so I really do appreciate it and thank you for everything that you did for the city thanks Arthur thank you yeah Commissioner of Villanueva I know you're virtual if you wanted to chime in you're more than welcome just a quick thank you for your service It's been a pleasure working with you thank you and I commissioner Becerra here I'd just like to thank you for your service as well and I hope to do right by your uh footsteps and thank you thanks go ahead yeah I mean I just you know I started on the Planning Commission in late 2014 and I just think back of the changes in the amount that the city has done over the past eight years almost nine years has been incredible you know Mark and I sat through a Master Plan update starting with a community outreach process you know we were involved with that um all the way through the adoption of the master plan The Joint meetings with the city council we had joint meetings with the County Commission we were involved in the zoning code update process and in some of the most you know some of the largest most influential projects in the city's history in the last couple decades too um you know Daybreak and ranchera Stonegate so I was just really fortunate to have had a seat you know at the table or at the diocese during that time and you know for me being part of the Planning Commission was really an opportunity to be part of what is a fundamental component of our democracy as a city in the decision-making process not only related to planning but you know it influences the outcome of the day-to-day livelihoods of our citizens so it was really cool to you know be able to interact with our constituents and our members of our community in that way so I really appreciated that and really enjoyed working with all of you with staff um all staff you know I think we have a great team here at the city and it's just been a real pleasure so thank you I think just like it was when we were on the Planning Commission he said everything I wanted to say but he said it better and more articulately so thank you I certainly enjoyed my time I enjoyed working with everybody in this room um and uh thank you thank you both if you guys want to come up here we have something for you thank you gentlemen appreciate it around yeah please all right thank you gentlemen we'll close item number five and move on to item number six public hearings any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard will need to we'll need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary alternatively you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of this meeting we will start off with item 6.1 which is Staff report for possible action case number ldc23-00067 Sierra mobile storage and will we be getting a presentation from the applicant application will be presenting remotely so okay make sure he's connected thank you Mr chair John crumpatic uh I'm here on behalf of the applicant and you know there's always that little delay when uh Scott Owen the secretary brings us in so um that's that I if you if you don't mind Mr chair and Commissioners I also want to do I'm hoping that the two gentlemen who served almost 10 years commissioner Gower and Peter uh and Mark Johnson I want to show my respect you know for uh I I know all you do Commissioners uh fairly well I have not met commissioner Becerra but you know I've been at it a while and and I I can see how much you guys respect them and from my perspective and from the community point of view I think you know one of them have a very deep background in planning and other in design brought so much value to the process of which we go through at every meeting and I thought they were extraordinary Commissioners and I certainly wanted to show my regard for them so thank you thank you John they heard you and we appreciate that thank you very much okay with that I will um fire up this PowerPoint can you see everything okay now I think we're good buddy we're good see and for and uh audio visual everything's good I always got a check yes you're good to go so this is Sierra mobile storage I'll let staff deal with the detail on the request you know that it's a conditional use permit for outdoor storage um for portable storage is the unique request here and also for the increase in height of the storage containers notice the site relatives that really there's two key issues as noted in the staff report and I think my uh outgoing kind of the staff comments on that are important one is really site design and the other is compatibility notice the industrial to the north on this aerial image what appears to be open spaces zoned of a funky parcel to the West also to the South vacant parcel and so then there's the adjacent uh residential across dead Boulevard also reflected in the zoning map there's we we noted uh all of the not open space but vacant land in all directions with the exception of the north you could see in a few uh images here how much separation there is and there is the site designed so the key issues of Staff pointed out and the conditions of which we accept as presented really the the biggest issue is how we interface along State Boulevard given the use we want that to look nice you can see the conditions I believe stress that up nicely with the landscape the buffer the eight foot wall and then the way we're tearing the storage containers as you go from stead to the north part of the site you see the Gated access single point there off the primary driveway and Jen quickly going through the images I mentioned there's the separation of the industrial property to the north there's looking West where it's vacant similar to the Southwest and they're South and boy those are beautiful images aren't you that's amazing what happens when we have a banner year of water um and there is a sample of the storage container two different sizes and there's another one with a wrap you can see that those wraps add a little different character to them so back to the site plan real quick I mentioned uh compatibility you can see we touched on it in the images and then I I think as as presented um the site design because of that uh condition number six which is the eight foot masonry wall and the Landscaping between the storage area instead Boulevard we deal with the visual mitigation with the stacking of the single row along stead Boulevard and then go to double stacking up to 16 feet in height further from the arterial stream customer access to the facility that's a control of access that was important to staff I learned more about it with um speaking with uh Carter this afternoon I didn't think of it as a regulatory issue as I'd like to be fair and discuss those things but he told me it was specific to the zoning and the use so I appreciate that and we accept the condition and then the last condition that is I think Germans again to all of these issues is the security plan we will have cameras on site um and uh have uh you know a full-time surveillance system for uh security so with that I have a lot of a lot of operational detail if you Commissioners wish to hear it in Q a I'll leave it at that on my basic introductory uh presentation thank you all for your time thank you for being here and thank you for your service thank you John then I'll get a presentation from the city [Music] all right good evening Commissioners Carter Williams assistant planner for the record I'll wait for my presentation to come up and begin all right before you tonight is an application for a conditional use permit for an outdoor storage facility the project the 2.07 Acre Site is west of stead Boulevard across from Ural Street and the specific operation and use is for storage of portable storage containers the property is located within the mixed use Suburban Zone which requires a conditional use permit for this type of use and is located within the industrial master plan land use designation generally the project is in conformance with the I master plan designation and upholds policies related to the establishment of employment centers the development of vacant land for infill and maintaining the overall mix of uses on the site um the zoning currently Nixie Suburban is not in conformance with the underlying master plan the industrial master plan so in the future we will likely see this go to more industrial Zone where outdoor storage uses are actually Allowed by Wright with fewer restrictions so this process allows us to apply conditions that will support better compatibility to the residentially zone property to the East and the mixed use property to the South I also want to note that there is so this is a convergence point between those three zones the Suburban mixed use mixed neighborhood and Industrial and the applicant through their site plan has implemented um Landscaping strategically to protect adjacent residential uses and mixed use um properties to the South the proposed operation is about 200 portable containers located across the site site access by customers is by appointment only through condition to make it more similar to an outdoor storage facility than a mini warehouse use there is shared access with the warehouse to the north there's no additional curb Cuts alongsted Boulevard will be proposed and in order to address well the applicant already proposed security and they're a nap concern that neighborhood Advisory Board had concerns about security at their their meeting there's chain link fencing that surrounds the property to allow for natural surveillance from adjacent properties and there's security lighting and cameras on site another concern from the neighborhood Advisory Board was the potential visual impacts from the project the applicant proposes to mitigate these impacts by providing an eight foot masonry wall with a significant landscape strip between stead Boulevard and that residentially Pro residential property to the east they also proposed the limit the first row of storage to eight feet that's designated by the green there and then the rest of the site will be limited to 16 feet in height or two of those um um stackable containers um both of these requirements are implemented through conditions of approval on the screen are the findings for a conditional use permit through staff's review and Analysis we found that all that this project meets all the findings and the recommended motion is on the screen I'm available for any questions thank you Carter all right we'll now move to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Villanueva if you want to start us off no disclosures commissioner Munoz I'm familiar with the area and I believe I read one email about this commissioner Becerra I'm familiar with the area and I visited the site [Music] commissioner Dracula dread and received email and familiar with the site all right we'll close that out and we'll open it to public comment Carlos do we have any requests to speak forms voicemails anyone virtual we did receive correspondence that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and entered into the record we don't have any requests to speak forms we did not receive any voicemails and don't have anyone be assumed that would like to speak at this moment thank you and even in the chambers which to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the commissioner for questions of the applicant or the staff commissioner I'll start um Carter I'm this might be for you or or maybe not um you had said that you were they were having um chain link fence in order to have visual into the property but then you also said there was going to be a cinder block wall can you just explain that a little bit further yeah so the the natural surveillance was a recommendation by the the Reno Police Department um to to allow for open view into the property but the NAB had concerns about visual impacts um so there's there's a balance right here in that we're trying to promote the aesthetic uh with with the with the landscape strip with with the with screening um while also still providing that natural surveillance so there is natural surveillance from the properties around but there's also 24-hour camera um there's there's cameras on site that would um Aid to the security as well as security lighting which was included in the the police department's report as other features to um surveillance so it's a balance of those um those two items okay and the the the planning in the city is is that's acceptable for them they're they're fine with the way that worked out and obviously uh John and the uh applicant are okay with those conditions we have no issues there they haven't communicated anything I think in their presentation they stated they were comfortable with those conditions they actually proposed that as before we implemented the conditions okay that's all I have thank you thank you commissioner Villanueva any questions no questions okay commissioner Becerra please no questions actually okay I'm good I also don't have any questions or concerns happy to move into discussion or entertain emotion um I'm happy to move into discussion here um commissioner Munoz for the record I um as you know I've I've voiced my opinion as far as more uh businesses in the North Valleys and as opposed to more residents and letting the uh area catch up as far as the infrastructure and I believe that projects like this um that don't overwhelm the area with more uh traffic more bodies more things up there and it's something that's usable is uh something that I look forward to and Ward 4 and I have no issues with this whatsoever great commissioner draculous I was looking forward to hearing your comments because I know we've had a lot of discussions about this and I'm actually pretty familiar with that road and that site and it seemed very appropriate from where I was standing and did a drive-by a couple days ago so glad to hear that from a resident up there thank you and if no other discussion I will entertain a motion I'll do a motion please uh commissioner Munoz for the record LDC 23-00067 Sierra mobile storage based on compliance with applicable findings I moved to approve the conditional use from it subject to conditions listed in the staff report and I can make the findings we have a motion oh please commissioner a second okay we have a motion in a second any more discussion seeing not uh all in favor aye aye aye all right any opposed none motion carries thank you and uh good luck with your project John [Music] all right moving on to item 6.2 ldc23-00065 306 East Taylor Street multi-family appears we'll get a presentation from the applicant guys how are you it's my first time presenting in front of you guys so don't expect so much but it will be very easy so I don't know if the presentation is up yet but oh yeah no problem I'll introduce myself while the presentation is coming up I'm botswanzade I'm a general contractor and real estate broker in Reno I'm one of the boutique small developers in town so uh we essentially buy small projects in town downtown Midtown mostly make it look really nice uh the building in question today is one of the buildings that we bought about two years ago wait till it starts so we bought this building about two years ago from the u-turbide family I think that's how you pronounce it they've owned a building for about 30 years uh we bought the building as what we thought was an eight unit apartment building uh as we go through the pictures in the presentation every single unit looks identical uh after we purchased the building we applied for a business license for a multi-family apartment building uh on the business license we put eight units uh we didn't think that we would have an issue because this building has been licensed for 20 plus years uh the city of Arena pushed back on it and said hey you only have seven units in the building uh and we we said what do you mean we have eight units every single unit is identical uh so they did an inspection the inspection just like what we said every single unit was identical uh but essentially they said hey you have to go through a process to be able to get it licensed as in eight units so here we are today uh do I skip for the pictures do I just go left and right cool so the this building it has more than sufficient parking uh there's more than eight units for parking spaces uh there's parking on both sides there's an Alleyway access and there's an off Street access for the two parking lots uh so we purchased it in March March uh 2 2022 uh like I said we purchased as an eight unit uh we try to get a business license uh and then they sent us here uh we're looking for a pathway to make this unit legal whatever that pathway may be uh the option of exiting this unit and like not having it usable as an apartment unit drastically like destroys the buildings financing our loan can get called uh we bought the building for over 200 Grand a door or right around 200 Grand the door so it's over a two hundred thousand dollar loss uh for the project and it would materially affect us as a company and our performance in the city uh so on the on the North side this is the parking lot that that comes in from East Taylor uh the building's in fantastic conditions it is a wood story with a brick facade it has a tiled roof uh this is the inside of the unit and every single unit is the same exact layout but mirrored to each other so uh that's how we didn't notice we thought it was totally kosher it looked this wasn't like an Adu or an add-on to a building or something illegal uh what we found out was I guess over 20 years ago it was a laundry room and somebody along those lines in the uturbide family updated it to a unit and I don't know if they filed for permits just because it was so long ago there was nothing on record uh if there was any permits or not everything that was on file was almost eligible just how old it was it looked like some architect just drew on pencils so we couldn't tell what it was uh What's blocking us is the zoning uh it's basically allowing for like seven point something of units and we're at eight units so we're just here applying for a variance to allow for that eighth unit to exist legally and for us to not evict that tenant and vacate that unit this area needs housing as much as possible we're not going from like a 10 unit to a hundred unit variance we're going from seven to eight unit variance this variance doesn't hurt anyone there's nobody that gets hurt by this variance if anything it helps the neighborhood just a little bit better and if anything in maybe two years or five years or six years the zoning in this neighborhood will improve and it's going to be legal anyways but to take that unit away now drastically changes the pathway for this project uh yep right in the Center of Midtown right between uh South Wells and Holcomb uh this is kind of like the the tenderloin of Midtown this is like the residential neighborhood not much commercial uh and then that's me so thanks that was my Spiel I don't need the full 15 minutes thank you should I say oh Rio now get a presentation from the city foreign Commissioners Carter Williams assistant planner for the record um the presentation before you is staff's analysis and recommendation unfortunately for denial of um this this application um it's a it's a it's a variance for the an additional unit um for an existing seven unit compartment complex excuse me the 0.16 acre project site is located southeast of East Taylor Street and Wheeler Avenue located in the Wells Avenue neighborhood so sometime in the properties history a laundry room and manager's office associated with the complex was converted to an illegal eighth unit without permits the application here seeks to increase the allowed number of residential units to legally establish that eighth unit um the current owner recently acquired the property because he stated and submitted a business license and at that time City staff and the applicant was alerted to the existence and the status of the the eighth unit so to give some building and Zoning history for the property um in between 1960 and 1990 the Zoning for the property was R3 which allowed for seven units in 1985 the complex was built and received a certificate of occupancy for seven units which maxed out the the property's capacity and density in 1990 the city did a zoning code update to replace the R3 zoning district with multi-family 43 it's 43 units per acre and then another subsequent update changed it to multifamily 30 which is the zoning as it exists today at that time it allowed for four units but in 2021 the city adopted a um the opportunity for density bonuses for small small unit sizes which brought the property back into conformance allowing for the seven units um so as I said no no there is no permit history for the state additional eighth unit So based on building permits business licenses and tax assessment history through the for the building's history this property has only received zoning approval for seven units um according to RMC the burden of to prove that a non-conformity exists is on the property owner and then and we have no records and unfortunately the property owner wasn't able to to provide any records that show that the permit was issued so um to give context to the area so the property Zone mf-30 the surrounding area within the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan is is multi-family 30 so the existing zoning is consistent with the with the existing block and neighborhood and generally the lot sizes are about the same so the condition of the property and the number of units allowed is consistent across this area um the property is located within the multi-family neighborhood master plan land use designation which allows for zoning districts that have a range of densities between 14 units and 30 units per acre and this is exceeding that this proposal now so the project as proposed is not in conformance with the MF Master pen land use designation we're going to the variance findings so in order for Planning Commission to Grant a variance four findings must be made um the first is that the property has to be characterized by an extraordinary or exceptional situation unique to the property staff wasn't able to find a condition that exists the size and density of properties surrounding the subject side are the same so any condition that may exist would not be unique and this is important because variances should not be used to address or or be used in lieu of broader um like a a text Amendment or something that would address a broader policy issue that is applicable to many properties second finding that has to be made is that this unique condition of the property has to cause an undue or peculiar hardship upon the property owner with the um with the strict application of code staff wouldn't classify the standard implementation of density requirements as say hardship um the granting of this variance would seem to be more a special privilege instead of the relief of a hardship and if a hardship does exist it would be self-imposed maybe not directly by the current applicant but by the uh whomever installed the legal improvements in the first place um the code also considers or prohibits the consideration of past improvements prior to this application to justify um the uh granting of a variance with the third finding um staff doesn't find that this project is detrimental to public health safety or welfare as these issues will be addressed in the permit review process if approved but the final condition is the projects must be consistent with the intended purpose of Title 18 and the renal Municipal Code has an established zoning framework which assigns appropriate minimum and maximum densities across the city a zoning map amendment allows staff to have a more to more comprehensively consider changes to density and how that change may fit into the context of an area in this case the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan had special attention and neighborhood engagement um there are and there are no specific Property Solutions to increase density or to allow uses and contribution contravention to the existing zoning code um so variants used in this way is inconsistent with the implementation of that zoning framework and undermines the public process implemented with the approval of the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan so in summary staff wasn't able to meet findings 1A 1B and 1D as well as general review criteria one which requires or it was which seeks um consistency with a master plan um so with all that said um staff is recommending denial of this application and on the screen is the recommended motion and I'm available for any questions thank you we'll go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Becerra please I'm familiar with the site commissioner Moon knows commissioner moon is unfamiliar with the site commissioner Villanueva no disclosures commissioner draculich I am I visited the site recently all right we will now move into public comment Carlos do we have any requests to speak forums voicemails or people virtual we don't have any requests to speak forms correspondence or voicemails and we don't have anyone they assume that would like to speak at this moment thank you anybody in the chamber's wish to speak on public comment for this item seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the commissioner for questions of the applicant or staff [Music] do we have any idea of when the improvements are for lack of a better word illegal renovation was made to this property we have any idea whatsoever the city has no record and Carter Williams assistant planner um the city has no record of those improvements I believe the applicant noted it could have been 30 years ago if they may be more um aware of when because they had conversations with the previous owner but the city is not aware when those improvements were made okay sir would you come up and try and answer that please give us advice of your knowledge I think it was about a little over 20 years ago 22 years ago or so that was a conversation with the seller what confused us was the seller was able to get a business license every single year and when you get your business license you have to do your fire inspections you have to do your I think it's just fire actually but everything passed so we were a little bit confused when when our time came for our license uh but I believe it was about 22 to 24 years ago because when they did it prior to seller uh the property was passed down in the family so many times they don't know which ownership did it but we're willing to permit it uh we just need a path to get there okay Carter can you speak onto that um when when this was permitted each year or I I'm not sure the process for how many times or is it every other year when is when does that have to be the property have to be checked so um the business license renewals occur annually um and those and from the I gotta we we did get confirmation from the business license department that they declared that there was seven units every single year since the since the establishment of that license um whether or not a fire inspection was done um in between that time usually fire inspections occur when the licenses have initially issued I'm not aware that when one was done after the fact so this is the first time the city was made aware of the eighth unit okay so which we have no idea when the last in fire inspection was done on the property uh no we would we wouldn't have a record of that okay commissioner Sarah please commissioner Sarah Carter you might be able to help point of clarification I guess um one on the matter that uh commissioner Muniz was just speaking to and um was it permitted as seven prior to this is that how it was filed it is currently permitted as seven and and yes there is there's no record in business license or building permit history that was other than anything other than okay thank you and then going back to your presentation you had a timeline around 1990 to 2001 it was reclassified for four units give or take 1990 to 2001 it was six units but then it did go down to four units in 2002. so there was there was some change in in history but the point of that was more to show that it never exceeded seven units so okay and during that change or that adjustment was it just grandfathered in uh to be above the allotted amount so it was six or four but they were seven so they were grandfathered in correct under the current code um when a permit is approved and has a certificate of occupancy um it has the right to continue um as long as there's not um a lapse of over a year in time in an operation so there they were entitled to continue seven units through that period where it became non-conforming the oh thank you commissioner Villanueva do you want to chime in yeah I have a question for Carter Carter uh with regard to the variance it says the property's character needs to be characterized by an extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition um can you and I understand here it says exceptional narrowness shown as or shape can you give me examples of you know what that would look like um can you give me anything you've seen in the past or just make up an example so I have an idea of what I'm looking for yeah a common example that we use um is so exceptional challenge that there's something like one's built into the code but one related to like a natural feature is an example that we use so like a rock out cropping that's placed on a property that's specific to a property where it only affects this one property that causes issues where the strict application setbacks building coverage some some element of the property that would make it difficult if not impossible to develop that would be a reasonable condition that's exceptional and extraordinary per the language of the code and you're talking about land not structure correct yep previous non-conforming building improvements cannot be used to justify a variance okay and I'm looking at these other things um okay I have other questions but I'm going to keep reviewing and um chair I will let you know when my round of questions comes back okay thanks uh Carter all-time and commissioner Dracula so has the city visited the site if they've been inside recently yes so there was a um inspection performed by the building official okay um yes okay and I guess I'm just confused on the eighth unit if if is it mirroring is it you know look like it's conforming to the other units is that what you guys saw there was some inconsistency um I think that the report that came back from the building official that it was they said that it was clearly different but um the applicant says that it's exactly the same so I don't know the full um what what is different from the building officials perspective but he did note that it was there were differences that made it look like it was developed at a different time okay and for a point of clarification too so when I read the staff report um based on my experience as a realtor I've been at dozens of multi-families like these and usually when you come up to one you see what looks like an attachment or an addition of some kind and you're like okay that's clearly not a permitted you know unit there and I didn't see that when I visited and even seeing the pictures again it sure looks like a building that you know looks like eight units that are up to code um so I'm kind of still just processing that because we're we're looking at a building that you know if built whenever it was permitted then it would look just like this is today it's not like it was altered in any shape or fashion that's you know detrimental but um so I just wanted to ask you that question I'll keep letting the Commissioners ask more if they would like thank you chair I have a question okay sure this is also for Carter Carter with regard to uh the findings when making our findings does the commission do we have a requirement to take into consideration uh financing limitations or financing expenses or um you know whether or not a party properly subject to themselves to um the word um they're you know re you know whether they did their research and you know as a result of a failure to you know do their due diligence may be subject to certain Financial Obligations that they otherwise didn't realize are any of those considered when we're making this determination generally my understanding is that financial implications related to the development of the property aren't necessarily um relevant in meeting that finding but but generally to um in this case there was a there was an improvement that was made without permits that is now causing a financial burden it we consider that self-imposed unfortunately so that that's I mean the the finding can't it can't be met by a self-imposed a hardship the Financial hardships I mean that's not even a finding that we consider is it a financial hardship or financial burden that's more of a city council thing not really a planning commissioner assessment is that right can you point me to a finding that says we need to take that into consideration when making a determination because of the argument by the applicant is that you know this is going to result in a financial hardship but there was really nothing no other hardships you know like that as the fine as the finding is yeah as the finding is written now um we would not consider a financial hardship um I mean appropriate to meet meet the findings okay okay all right thank you chair Angela looks like you wanted to comment the Angela Foose assistant director I was just going to provide maybe a little more background so I will say in these older infill areas we see this a lot where 20 years ago 30 years ago an apartment project was maybe converted maybe it was a manager's unit maybe it was a laundry unit and it was converted and unless we have documentation through any of our building permits or any kind of history of our City of Reno files we don't know that it was ever legally converted so the challenge is do we just let anyone come in because they say oh I bought it this way so it must be okay um then everybody would do these things illegally and just say whoops I didn't know right so that there's a reason why these rules are in place that we have to know it was legally converted if there was any documentation to show that they went through a building permit regardless of what the zoning had allowed let's say 20 years ago or 30 years ago if at some point the city approved a building permit to convert it then we'd be able to say okay it was illegally converted but in this case because we can't find any documentation that it was legally converted it may look like it was converted legally but but we don't know so the again our challenge is if they came in today and they were able to meet the zoning density we'd say great show us that you know higher the right building folks to make sure it meets all of today's codes our fire codes our Electrical Codes our plumbing codes but because it doesn't meet the the zoning density the the density that's allowed in the Sony District our hands are tied the code doesn't allow us just to allow density where the zoning doesn't allow it unless there was proof from sometime in the past where we had approved it legally through the building permit process and the struggle again you know from a master plan perspective I will add is that as the master plan encourages infill um and this this this property does meet all the other requirements in terms of you know that the setbacks aren't aren't changing it meets the parking requirements so I think from from that perspective there's also a case to be made of if we're trying to encourage infill and it meets all the other zoning code requirements um you know what's to prevent us from allowing this type of use but from Strictly a zoning code perspective our challenge is that it doesn't meet zoning and so unless we can find proof that it was ever legally established to be a residential unit um from a staff pers you know staff review we can't recommend approval so uh I have another question Carter have we approved any variances in the area for um for an additional unit or additional five units anywhere in the wells area or anywhere in that land use multi-family 30 area that where this project is being proposed we haven't approved any any density increases through variances in the city Arena ever from my understanding um so this this is has not been used in this way before okay it's okay and okay I have a question for the applicant I'm ready um have you I mean have you worked with the city to try and see what other Solutions are available I I know you're speaking of variance um but I mean because what conversations have you had with the city about yeah we started off as an M cup application and we're essentially trying every single route so we're not like picking one route we're trying every single route because to get this unit not allowed is is a huge huge pain point for us so whatever route is available we're taking it um we try we're we're doing the M cup route which we're trying this first if there's a denial today we are going to go in front of the council but we can't go in front of the the city council without this first uh so that would be the next step but we're gonna try every single route that we can and I think the fact that you guys have a the power to do a variance I think it's best use in cases like this I respect the framework that you guys created for this variance but these are I think the case is that it should be used for and the fact that it hasn't been allowed yet or hasn't passed in the neighborhood yet I think this is a perfect first time time scenario to add more housing units that we desperately need I mean the more the more inventory we have the less the price so uh I don't see who would be hurt by this and it is a case by case so if somebody tried to use it in the future as long as they're not abusing it and that there's enough evidence that it seems correct then it should also be approved for them but if there isn't then they shouldn't so I don't think it's it sets the Precedence for other people to come in and abuse it it's a case-by-case and that's what the variance approval should be is that is that apartment currently occupied correct so all eight all eight places are occupied as we speak do we know how long that unit has been on um I believe that unit has that tenant has been there since we bought it and we extended it so we extended it about right as right after we right before the city asked us so I think it has about five six months left on it on their lease but they don't want to leave they want to stay there for as long as they can and Julie pardon me do we know it's that unit specifically or could this be one of the other units on the property do we know it's that unit that wasn't that wasn't licensed correct yep we do know it's that unit for sure it's definitely that one because on the old architectural pencil drawings it says that there was a laundry room there mm-hmm and we're willing to permit it and go through the same exact process that we do with all of our other permits where City inspectors come check the building check the plumbing check the electrical so we're willing to take that route we're not trying to get away with anything We're just trying for that unit to exist legally okay Carter on that note can I What in in order to and I understand that it's a seven unit area because of the size in order to satisfy the city so this works out for everybody what is the next step for them if this is denied here so for this application it would obviously be the appeal for city council um generally Zone uh density increases are handled through zoning map amendments um and in this case it would be a master plan Amendment but there's there's challenges even with that just because I mean if we look at the context of the area that there's mf30 all surrounding it where do we go from mf30 there's no a higher density outside of a commercial zone so we it really takes a um more comprehensive analysis of the area and potentially the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan um so staff did work to identify kind of a solution to move forward um but we we I don't think we have one unfortunately um with the with the tools that we have okay thank you commissioner Dracula Carter question for you so if we did approve the variance I'm sorry go backwards I lost that second if we don't approve the variance what would happen to that unit red tag it tenant needs to leave and what happens did you just trust that the owner doesn't put another person in and how does that look so currently there is no enforcement action on the property um there is a business license application and so once that business license expires because we're not able to approve the eighth unit um compliance would initiate um steps to have the property vacated and then um reverted convert it back converted back to just anything or it could be it just can't be anything but originally it was a laundry room in a manager's office so it could be converted out or another amenity something okay thank you this is commissioner Carter man of the other the applicant's looking for a path forward right I think you've mentioned that a few times and it seems like we're uh in a hard spot here um what and I kind of heard you allude to this perhaps maybe a master plan Amendment but is that the ultimate path forward or is is there a path forward uh for them let me um if I can call up the application or the uh my presentation as well I have a slide that I prepared to kind of go over what this process would look like um if I can remember how to do it so as I said before there's no options for property specific increases in density and in this case um specifically we did approve a master plan and Zoning math Amendment just for this property it would be considered spot zoning um which is not legal in the state of Nevada um that that's approving a Zone that's inconsistent with the the fabric of the the zoning framework and the issue that we have is that as we so if we walk along South Virginia Street towards Taylor South Virginia Street has this this cluster of area where there's no maximum density we can we can they can go as high as they want as long as they meet the minimum requirements but once we pass Holcomb into the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan we the density drops down to multi-family 30. and it stays that way until we get back into the the traditional commercial Corridor of Wells Avenue so this area was traditionally the idea of this area was traditionally limited to multi-family um uses to a medium density if we start looking at master plan and zoning map amendments um it would also allow for more intense commercial uses in the area and those commercial uses were also contemplated on a broader scale with the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan which allowed some uses to to exist and also limited the uses in this area so really what this what I think what would be the best option um isn't something that can be initiated by the applicant it's something that requires a broader look at the area and what we want to see for the area for density for land uses um and and again variances shouldn't be used for broader policies issues like that great thanks Carter and timing wise um what would that analysis look like timing wise what are we looking at three months six months couple years so if if it were like if the applicant did initiate it and we maybe extended this commercial Corridor along Taylor Street to include this property we'd have to have all the property owners on board first of all which could take time from the city's processing perspective a master plan and zoning map Amendment takes about 90 to 120 days because it requires Planning Commission recommendations city council approval and conformance at the regional planning level so it is a significant process um generally that's still hard for staff to support so it likely would could be something even larger than that something that opens up the the code and the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan which can take much longer um based on city council priorities okay thank you Carter commissioner Villanueva do you want to come back in sure I guess I can just make some comments um so this is a hard one for obvious reasons um but I I mean I just because we're a land use board we're Planning Commission our scope is pretty limited it's really we don't have the purview to consider financial hardship or whether or not an applicant did their due diligence when deciding to buy a property um however this is kind of a unique circumstance where you know it is just the addition of one unit um and it seems like it would potentially be a benefit however my concern is just the Precedence and if we allow this developer to come in and do it you know that sets precedence for others to kind of come in and not also not do their due diligence or also not take the proper steps that need to be taken um When developing in a city and you know part of our job is to be thoughtful and looking at the development projects and so um you know I I do want to see this move forward but I just don't think this is the right process and I don't think it variance is the proper um method um but I do hope that the applicant can work with City and maybe there is a path forward I just don't think that this is it um that's where I am right now but if someone has something to add and which can help me get to where I need to go I'm happy to hear those thoughts thank you I'm in the same place as you uh commissioner director uh commissionerville where the same place I'm struggling with it because I'd like to see it happen um I'm thinking of the master plan a lot and an infill unit doors we need doors we talk about all the time the door is there applicant is willing to take the steps to bring it up to code um and say for an occupant but also it sounds like even you know proving this variance it seems like extremely complex and almost if I'm wrong and maybe Carter and really want to jump in it almost seems extremely unlikely that it can even occur after it leaves here even if we approve the variance am I wrong there no if if you were to approve the variance The Next Step would be tied to the business license where through the business license process we would bring our building official into the into the fold and have them verify that it again it meets all of our plumbing and electrical and fire safety issues once they pass all of those requirements then it could be used as a residential unit okay and to your point commissioner Villanueva on setting a precedence I get it and I know we don't like to do that here but also we have a tool of variance at our disposal um and it's not like it's just uh willy-nilly I guess they've got a lot to do a lot of work to do um so it is a tool in our toolbox here obviously it's what we're deciding on but I'm with you I'm I'm in your mind there but also thinking about this is a tool you know why can't we use it but I'm still kind of torn and commissioner I I agree I think it is a tool I just need to be able to use that tool properly and so if you can give me a good reason I honestly I would jump Give Me A Reason like give me I just need a good argument and something to you know help me make that leap but I I just don't see it so if you can if you can get there yeah I get it yeah the only thing I have for you is master plan and needed doors and in the right part of the community and um you know this was an extraordinary addition or something unique or odd I would be in a different place um but we need the doors and it's just what I think about a lot when I'm on this commission I'm not saying that's going to push you over the edge but maybe that's something are we in discussion now oh yeah we kind of just did that so I apologize if we have any more yeah so and I made you I may jump back to the applicant and Carter but um man this is a rough one because I think it was a perfect storm for uh the applicant and and it had been a business license for maybe the past 22 years we don't even know when this was done so this property had been operating as an eight unit property for over 20 years now um it's something that we ask all the time we need more doors we need more doors we need more places we need more places we need more places can we get more places and this place which even if we do approve this which Angela you did uh you did uh answer some of my questions that it's not just here you go here's a free get out of jail pass card here is okay now you need to go through these next steps to make sure with the with the uh plumbing and electrical and the fire and all that so it's not just giving them a free get out of jail card there's still some stuff that has to be done to make this happen and if this wasn't a property that was already uh in use then maybe I'd be a little more hesitant to approve this the fact that um it is a part of the existing building they did not add you know a third story and put six more units in there they did not add a shop or a shack to the back of the building and put a screen door in a sliding glass door to something else they use the existing frame to put something in where there was obviously adequate room to have another uh another apartment on this building kind of puts me at ease a little bit and so as much as I understand where the city's coming from and as much as I understand where the athletes the applicants coming from I'm leaning towards the applicant because you know this is something that's going to help the city it's not overpowering the area that somebody's already been there for the last 22 years we're not overpowering and adding uh 25 more trips a day and we're not adding six more doors and we're not adding a bunch of people to the schools and they're already there they've already been there for 20 plus years um so as much as I understand where the city is coming from it's pretty easy to go through and say no this this I think this can be done the right way still and I don't think we should be hindering the growth is what we've been asking for and if we can make that happen and this is a tool that we have that we are allowed to use that we are legally allowed to do this I don't see a problem with us doing it that's where I'm at thank you commissioner Basir you want to slide into this discussion uh sure I think I'm with everyone so far it's it's it's a difficult one I empathize with the applicant um the big part of me wants to support you and just say yay I am just worried about that precedent that everyone else has mentioned and I guess maybe this is a question for our legal arm here or um our assistant director to maybe help clarify since Carter did mention we've never done this before right we've never approved like in a variance how would we best respond with potential future applicants in this situation would it be a case by case um or does it open up the floodgates I'm trying to better understand how we can support this or or not I think you guys it however you make your recommendation tie it to the findings and so I think go back and look at the findings and state if you can or cannot make the findings on this specific case and why for the sake of that commissioner directors for the sake of what you just said uh Angela I appreciate that if we can only make a few of the findings um because I understand I believe one a and One D is understandable but once again we're having that conversation about the use of a variance to maybe get over some of those findings um you know just you know I'd be ready to make emotion you know I'd be supportive of emotion to approve the variance with a few of these findings but some of those I understand we won't be able to meet so what does that look like just new to me I I would um encourage you to be able to make all the findings okay and maybe some of your co-commissioners might might have in a different opinion maybe they can make the findings if you can't thanks commissioner Carter would you mind bringing up that findings deck that you had it was gonna ask for that too thank you [Music] thank you and foreign would you mind just coming up for a sec I I think you mentioned um with commissioner Villanueva the first one right you talked about what would an extraordinary exceptional situation be um what would undoor peculiar hardship look like or or any of any of the others that are a no yes unexpected one thing um if Michelle could you bring up the staff report um with the actual findings not just these to give kind of Carl Hall um says there's more language in there to kind of okay that you guys can read through um so as far as undue or peculiar hardship um so going back to maybe my example of a rock outcropping um where the um there's a large crop cropping on this property it encompasses a large portion of the property that um maybe might be towards the rear that pushes a building forward um to the point where they're it's either they can't have um success in developing the property um or it's just not developable at all because of this because of our setback requirements the the um the instance of not being able to build at all is is an undue hardship um because of the the strict application of the code or even um something that in the end wouldn't that makes a property undevelopable from a um from like the size of the units or something something related to the land that um is constricted so much that they're not able to develop no matter what the use is that we put on the property if they're if it's say if it's a property that um can be developed as multi-family but can't be done as um something else that wouldn't be a hardship necessarily because there's other options but if there's no options for development of the property and it's so constricted that's a an undo or peculiar hardship thank you commissioner sir if I can jump into it that very topic so 1A comes off to me is it's something that this is for a building that has yet to be built so someone's coming in to apply for a certain amount of density and then they have to prove that there's an extraordinary exceptional situation or condition this is properties already built so it's really hard for me to slap this finding on here and actually agree with the finding or disagree with the finding um do you want to speak on that it's I understand why it's here and why we're reading it but this is an existing structure yes and then I mean that's where staffs um issue is is that we there this there's not really a hardship here because it is a built building it's not um the the tool that we have before us with the findings that we have it isn't conducive to this situation unfortunately yeah that's what I'm struggling with I get it I I get what it I'm reading it and understanding it but not having you know I'm having trouble applying it to the situation and caring about it at all in my decision making process so it's not that I'm disagreeing with the you know the issue they're finding just how to say it's not even weighing in my decision so let's just I guess I'm still in the discussion there but uh Tara can I see the proposed um you may have the proposed motion on the screen proposed motion is based upon the non-compliance with the applicable findings I moved to deny the variance hopefully it helps okay so um I I'm happy to make a motion as it's proposed um and then I guess we can go into discussion about that well first we have a motion we'll need to Second it to move into oh we do yeah yeah no no you're fine first emotion um do we have a second on that motion commissioner Becerra second okay we have a motion in a second and we'll move into discussion about commissioner available to waiver moving to deny the variants a commissioner here I I think we all generally want to see this move forward but like commissioner Villanueva mentioned um this may not be the body uh at this time particularly because this has never been done before and it might be Prudence of us to get the perspective of city council and others to weigh in on it because if we are going to make an approval at some point or a change it seems like we should have um the the eyes and experience of a larger body as well to be able to weigh in on this that's my take okay thank you for reference we have a motion and a second for denial and if it is a 2-2 vote it would be a technical denial is that correct that's correct yeah commissioner Moon knows any thoughts before we go to vote um commission minutes for the record I I'm in the same place um I think that this is a very unique situation and although I understand where cities coming from and what you said about the first finding I completely agree I don't believe it fits this at all I can make the other findings and I do believe this is a good use of the variance I I do I don't see this being an issue and as far as precedent goes we that's something I think as a as a board um there's a commission we've always been very careful about um I believe we've always taken that into uh consideration before we make votes I think we've been very careful about that and because this is so unique um for me I don't believe this sets a precedent at all I believe this uh this is its own thing this is its own um this own animal and because like I said in in a few minutes ago because this has been uh an occupied dwelling for 22 years um it gives me a hardship about that that is not a concern of mine because of that so uh because of that I would be voting uh against the motion okay uh commissioner Dracula I'm in agreement with everything you said especially when we talk about precedent um I think we get scared about opening floodgates I just don't see that even with my two and a half years here we haven't made a decision where all of a sudden it's drastically brought different things to the staff store and I get they always have a battle um if you told me the same exact building was it by another owner 10 blocks away and it was identical to this I'd want the probably want the variance to happen again if it was one unit built this way and so I don't think that'd be setting a present that would just being a good job meeting the needs of the master plan so I'll stop there I'm also not going to be in favor of the denial but um any more discussion yes please do yeah I just to discussion before we um close that matter so like I said I do I ultimately wish I could do and wish I could side with you but if you can give me so based on what you and and commissioner Muniz said what we're saying here is that we're granting the variance because of unique circumstances so what exactly in order to set this particular variance apart and set aside from other variances give me those exact examples so I know why in this case we should in fact give that variance if you can do that for me if you can show me why in this case it you know this case is set apart is distinguished from other cases then maybe I could side with you but I I haven't seen that so give me some examples as to why this unique situation or this situation is unique and why in this case it deserves it deserves the variance so in future cases I know to look for those unique circumstances and um you know I know to keep an eye out for them yeah I don't have any examples I really don't and I guess that's what makes it unique um we're just dealing with the situation in the present with the current building um if we saw this a lot and we're making decisions in the other direction or in any other you know in the same direction then I probably wouldn't have a problem making you know this decision I'm making tonight but it is just that unique um and I'm just looking at this one in front of me so I I know that's not going to change your your mind there because I don't have an example for you but it's just kind of how I feel and once again I'm just leaning on that master plan is all that really hangs over me okay and the uniqueness is what exactly that this is an existing structure that's had you know occupation for over 20 years we also have an applicant that's willing to take the right steps to bring this up to code um we're not going to make an impact on the neighbors the schools uh commissioner Munoz kind of nailed all those points home you know we will be affecting essentially no one with this and understanding we are doing a variance and that will be perceptions of that variance I get that um but everything else about this it's not making an impact that I think is wrong for the community okay and so what you're sharing with me just so I understand is that projects in the future that share similar traits to this project in the sense that they've been around for 20 years non-compliant if that's to arise again in the future we should give the variance because I mean it's been around for 20 years non-compliant or not it's not really going to cause harm on the community in an existing structure that's willing to be brought up to code and safely inhabit an occupant absolutely I made it once again I'll take back the word absolutely I will look at it differently but I will definitely have the same eyes as I will as I do tonight okay thank you I appreciate that of course thank you for asking that uh commissioner Becerra here please assistant director fuse maybe for you or Carter if we were to amend the motion um and then make another one to approve for instance would there be a disruption to the current tenants of the applicant while it goes through the reveal review process like would there be a disruption regardless you're referring to if you were to approve this variance correct so the next step would be to it meets all the building code and if they can't meet building code requirements then this cannot be turned into a residential unit right so during that time though since our current tenants with those tenants need to vacate the premises until it's brought to code I believe he's shaking his head is there a tenant in there now oh there is a tenant there now you have to come up to the mic sir yeah so the process would be are our architect would design a layout plan a plot map Etc the same exact path to permits that would be 90 of the work we handed it in uh and then an inspector would come one if not two times just to check and make sure everything on the plans are correct and that everything is safe uh there wouldn't be any construction to the unit there wouldn't be any disruption to the tennis life point of clarification here though because you don't really have a CFO for the eighth unit correct like well we have a CFO but we're not for an eighth unit yep so right so your tenants technically should not be in there is that correct the tenant came with the building no I know you inherited it I understand that I'm just I'm just trying to make sure that whatever we decide here um uh supports you know uh you protects your tenants protects um the city so it's a win-win-win for everyone right sure and it may be a situation again from a code enforcement perspective it may be a situation where we have to move the tenant out or you would have to move the tenant out on a temporary basis while it's going through the certificate of occupancy of making sure it's approved and meets all the codes and then they could move back in so there that would be something we would work with the applicant on yeah code enforcement has been pretty good so far they asked us to vacate the unit and we said hey we're going through this path right now for approval and they said okay we'll wait for your path to finish uh so they haven't asked us to force vacate anyone yet okay thank you okay and Michelle wanted to make a point because commissioner Becerra so we have a motion in a second Michelle you wanted to jump and you want to make sure we actually hold the vote uh but it also seems like commissioner Mercer were you considering retracting your second um similar to commissioner Villanueva if if I had solid findings to to fall back on for the future where I can say if someone else came up and said they're in a similar situation and we can distinguish um their situation from this one right so it doesn't open up the floodgates just willy-nilly I I would be open to that but I'm still not there yet okay so you want your second to uh be maintained correct okay rules and two denials it's an automatic denial it's a technical denial is there any way we can push it to a meeting where we have more members just because an even number kind of puts us in a weird position and just as a note when Carter pulled up that map of Midtown I don't know if you guys know Mormon properties I'm 33 owner we built a lot of those blocks there not with institutional Capital but with our own sweat tears and hard work so we're here today asking for your kindness and I know there's no precedence on this but there should have been the fact that there's no precedence on this the fact that there wasn't a variance used this way I think it's a sign of the problem we need more units this should be used this way so I don't think it's an argument that this has been used this has been never used before it should have been used many times before so I just wanted to clarify that thank you I appreciate it we'll let you know if we have more questions sure I understand where you're coming from um Michelle you look like you wanted to speak well if it ends in the technical denial your options are to appeal to council or you can make you can request a continuation to another Planning Commission meeting as a date certain so those are your two options you can appeal to council or we can move it to another meeting um commissioner maintenance real quick I I maybe I fell asleep but when did the motion happen and who made the motion commissioner Villanueva I thought she was just asking to see the motion I didn't know she was actually making a motion no she made the motion a commission of Villanova do you want to confirm I did I made the motion okay all right gotcha thank you this is commissioner commissioner Villanueva question for you based on the recent conversation how are you feeling do you feel confident in the in the findings yet or still a little blurry I I'm still a no as much as I want to be yes I just don't I can't make the findings um and I just don't you know and yes I'd be happy to give a variance but I don't have the evidence and the facts and you know I just don't have the support to get me to a variance so I'm still gonna be a denial well Sarah here again thank you I will say this uh I'm there as well still I'm I'm still not sure but I do know that the the path doesn't end here with us there is an option right to to appeal to that larger body that you requested where it's hopefully not an even number of folks um so so that gives me at least a bit of Hope right that you do have a a way forward to to appeal our decision should it move forward with the denial um which is where I'm at still okay so the fake sake of efficiency it sounds like everybody's had their voice heard we have emotion and a second for denial uh all in favor of the denial really hi any opposed no yeah no all right it is a 2-2 that is a technical denial um we'll read you the appeals process any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the Planning Commission maybe appeal to the Reno city council by the applicant the mayor or city council member or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction an appeal together with fees must be filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk we wish you luck on that yeah [Music] feel free to talk to staff after that [Music] all right give me a moment folks all right we are closing item number two and moving on to item number seven Planning Commission training series American Planning Association APA video presentation and discussion on legal decision making so before we get started I do know that commissioner Villanueva I believe you have to jump off yes my flight is actually boarding so I do have to jump off thank you thank you for your time appreciate it all right take care yeah so as we are now down to three Commissioners we no longer have a quorum I might suggest we just postpone the the rest of the meeting totally fine with that so we do we need a motion to postpone the rest of the meeting I think we just lost her but um oh yeah yeah she think we need a motion to adjourn yeah okay if there's any discussion we'll just have a motion to adjourn and move all these items to the next meeting I moved to a church yeah that's you for the first one I like it we got a second all right got a motion and a second to adjourn all in favor all right aye