[music] All right. This is the city of Reno Planning Commission meeting dated Wednesday, February 18th, 2026. The time is 6:00 p.m. We will begin with the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner >> Valto States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice. >> Item A2. Madame clerk, roll call. >> David Jockman >> here. >> Jacob Williams >> here. >> Alex Belto >> here. >> Manny Bera >> present. Christina Delviar >> here. >> Tina Gianiantini >> here. >> Carrie Roier >> here. >> We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. >> Thank you. And right back to you, Madam Clerk. Item A3, public comment. >> 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 may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded 3 minutes. If you're an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you'll be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Um, for those online or in person, this is the opening general public comment period. If you'd like to speak under a specific agenda item, you can speak now or wait for that agenda item. Um, with that, we did receive correspondence for this item that were forwarded to the commission and added to the record. Um, I don't have anyone online with their hand raised for this item, and I do not have any um public comment cards in person. Thank you. Do we have any requests to speak under this item in chambers? Hearing none, we will move forward to item A4. This is approval of the agenda uh for today, February 18th, 2026. >> Move to approve. >> Commissioner Williams. Second. >> Motion and second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. Item A5, approval of the minutes from our February 4th, 2026 meeting at 6 PM. >> Commissioner Williams, move to approve. >> Oh, go ahead. [snorts] >> We have a motion from Williams, second from Delvr. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. We will now move to item B, staff announcements. Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh just one quick announcement this evening. Uh the regional planning commission appointments will be considered by city council next Wednesday at their regular meeting and that's the only announcement I have today. Thank you. We will now move forward into our public hearings. Item C1. This is a staff report for possible action. Case number LDC26-35. This is Robert's front setback deviation. We will begin with a presentation from staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, commission. For the record, I'm Nathan Gilbert, principal planner with the city of Reno Development Services. Uh, presenting this evening, LDC 2635, Robert's front setback deviation. So, the subject parcel is a 0.97, excuse me, 0.97 acres located on the north side of Heathridge Lane. It's currently vacant and proposed for a single family home, which is allowed by Wright. The request this evening is for a major deviation to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. Key issues in the request are compatibility with surrounding uses and overall grading impacts. The master plan land use designation for the site in the area is single family neighborhood. Uh key master plan policies include underutilized properties, flexible design and contextsensitive design. The zoning for the site and surrounding areas, single family residential, three units per acre. So, a little bit of background. Uh, this is the last undeveloped lot on Heathridge Lane. Uh, the Heathridge subdivision was originally subdivided in the 1960s. The reduced front setback would greatly reduce grading and need to cantalver the home into the uh budding slope. The home uh is built to site constraints which is not terribly typical. Um the way that that the building is proposed is 28 foot long approximately uh uh building portion along the northern side and a 23rd foot long southern portion uh to match the top of the slope. The site design is consistent with adjoining homes by building to the top of the slope which uh the Ether subdivision has varying um front setbacks uh to accommodate that top slope. The proposed structure avoids steep slopes on the west side of the site. It's consistent with existing development patterns of the neighborhood and greatly limits the amount of required grading and site disturbance. there are no deviation to the side setbacks requested. So the re uh the recommended findings are on your screen and as outlined in your staff report uh they will not significantly impact nearby property. There's no new encroachments. There's an existing city curb cut that they will be utilized to access the garage. The site placement is consistent with the surrounding development pattern. Um the project changes enabled will enhance the overall design of the project. Again, this allows for reduced to minimal grading does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties. There are very front setbacks in Heathridge Lane ranging from approximately 20 to 37 ft um based on the existing slope constraints and uh health, safety and welfare. The shorterfront setback accounts for site conditions to reduce grading engineering criteria is a evaluated at the building permit that includes geotechnical reports, site drainage, post construction, storm water, and the like. That concludes my presentation. The recommended motion for approval is on your screen. Um, also the applicant's representative, uh, designer is here to answer any questions. I don't believe he has a presentation. >> Thank you. Hearing there is no applicant presentation. We will now move forward to disclosures and then uh public comments. So, Mr. Commissioner Velto >> uh Commissioner Velto, no disclosures. >> Uh Commissioner Jockman, read and reviewed materials. >> Commissioner Williams, same. >> We will now go online. Uh Commissioner Delvr, >> Commissioner Delvr, read and and reviewed materials. >> Commissioner Bera, read and reviewed materials and and familiar with the site. Commissioner Gianiini read and reviewed materials. Commissioner Roer, same disclosures. >> Madame Clerk, do we have any uh public comment under this item? >> I have one on Zoom. Um Judy Covert, if you want to speak under this item, just unmute your mic and state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. >> My comments were for the Canyon. Judy, sorry. Were did you want to speak under this item or the next one? >> The next one. >> Okay, perfect. Leave your hand raised. Um, we'll call on you for the next item. >> Okay, with that, I do not have any request to speak forms in chambers. We do not have anyone online with their hand raised. We did receive correspondence for this item um that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time on this item? Hearing none, we will now move forward to questions from the commission. >> Commissioner Rivera. >> Hey, thank you. Uh, good evening. >> Hey, Nate. Uh, just a quick one. Um I think just just in reading some of the public comment and the adjacent neighbors. Um does does you know approving this project as presented materially change the established uh street rhythm or pattern alongside uh is Heathridge or like another way to look at it maybe is like how will this break the visual alignment of homes along Heathridge laying it at all? I I don't think it would break the rhythm much as as I identified that you know the the front setbacks vary from roughly 18 to to 35 ft. So there's there's quite a bit of diversity in the front setbacks and that all appears to be based on on the rear slope. >> Okay, cool. Thanks Nate. And then just uh one followup again just based on the questions we received or feedback. Uh why is 15 ft the minimum necessary deviation? >> I'm sorry. I think I had a hard time understanding that. Why is 15 ft the minimum? >> Yes, >> that you're only allowed up to a 50% reduction in the um allowed front setback. So in the SF3 zone, the the standard front setback would be 30 feet. >> Okay, awesome. And then so with that, does uh reducing that setback introduce any slope stability risk? >> No. >> Okay, cool. That's those are my questions for now. Thanks, Nate. >> Commissioner Delviar. >> Thank you, Commissioner Delvari. Yeah, this is for you, Nate. Um, can you The only thing I was kind of concerned about or didn't quite understand was um the garage or driveway. Obviously, 15 ft is pretty small. And so, I'm just trying to figure out what what the plan was for that cuz I I couldn't sort of understand what was happening with that. >> So, there is a a condition of approval. So, the garage it would utilize an existing curb cut that's that's there currently. Um, the uh there is a condition of approval that that the to deviate from a 20 foot drive uh excuse me, a 20ft driveway that would require permission from the city engineer. So, that is a condition of approval that they meet that >> and or get approval from the city engineer at time of building permit. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Uh, got one. Hi, Nate. Uh, quick question, Commissioner Williams, for the record. Uh, the last couple that have come up in front of us, you know, on these steeper grades have have talked about runoff and drainage. And is there anything that staff saw that we should be taking into consideration when making this approval tonight or denial? I guess >> no, that that [music] this is preliminary design. This is really just a zoning issue. All that again, the geotechnical drainage, storm water prevention, all that's evaluated uh by engineering and public works during the building permit process. >> Great. Thank you. >> Do we have any other questions from the commission at this time? >> Seeing no hands raised online, we will now move to deliberations and entertain a motion should one be made. Commissioner Bisera, happy to make a motion if folks are okay. >> Please proceed. >> Right. Fantastic. In the matter of uh case number LDC 26-000035, Robert's front setback deviation to approve the project and I can make the readings. >> Commissioner Delvier, I second. >> We have a motion and a second. And all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Sorry, mine was an I. >> My apologies. >> Uh, hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C1, public hearing. We will now move on to item C2. This is also a public hearing. This is [clears throat] a staff report for possible action. Case number LDC25-64, the canyon's tenative map and major site plan review. For this item, we will begin uh with another presentation from staff. Please proceed. >> Hello again. For the record, Nathan Gilbert, principal planner development services, presenting LDC 2564, the canyon's tenative map and major site plan review. So, the 168 acre pro project site consists of four parcels located uh at the eastern terminus of Mineshaft Drive, east of the 260 lot palisade subdivision uh to the west and the and north of the Valley View PUD um to the south. The request is for a tenative map for 110 unit single family detached subdivision and major site plan reviews for hillside development, XX, excuse me, excess cuts and fills, grading and open space, disturbance of a major drainage way. The master plan designations on the site are single family neighborhood and parks, greenways, and open space on the eastern two parcels. Key master plan policies include hillside development, cut and fill slopes, and pedestrian and bicycle connections. The zoning district for the entire site is the canyon's planned unit development. So, this is really an implementation of the standards in that handbook which include density, the developable area, um everything under the sun uh that PED um addresses. So key issues with this entitlement are overall site design, compliance with PED development standards, and appropriateness of grading practices. So the PUED identifies a 42 acre residential area designation. That's the yellow blob on your screen. Um the lots conform to this placement. The remainder of the subject site is 119 acres of passive and active open space. This includes undisturbed open space, parks, infrastructure, and utilities. The subdivision is proposed in two phases with the first phase at 97 lots with an average lot size of 10,500 square ft and a second phase uh with 17 lots on the eastern uh most two parcels with an average lot size of 22,000 square ft. There are two accesses into a looped roadway that serve the development. That's mineshaft road extensions of mineshaft road and clan jumper way. Condition number 22 is recommended to ensure that future road connections to the Valley View PED are maintained to the south. That's uh those are policies outlined in in both handbooks. A traffic entry and access study was performed and no impact to level of service was identified. It's anticipated that 82 a.m. peak hour and 109 p.m. peak hour trips would occur. Amenities identified in the plan unit development that are implemented through this approval include a halfacre neighborhood park, a2acre pocket park, a.5 acre demonstration garden, and a 0.9 acre trail head area. Additionally, there are interconnected public trail system with connections to existing and proposed networks in the Palisad subdivision and planned connections to the Valley View PUB to the south. The PUB also outlines wildlife habitat restoration measures. um somewhat unique to the PUD in that um native pinion pine and juniper plantings are proposed in disturbed areas. The disturbed areas are um the areas in dark green there. Typically code would just require reveation of the moved dirt with native seeds. This requires the reveation and also the the pinion pine and jun juniper plantings for kind of a a unique and more natural aesthetic. It also requires habitat restoration in undisturbed areas. That's the area in light green on your screen. Um code typically wouldn't require any any sort of remediation um to land that that wasn't disturbed through grading practices. What the PED identifies is uh removal of noxious weeds and overseeding of uh key planting species to help support wildlife. Lastly, uh the horse and wildlife uh fencing plan will be implemented per the peed standards and that will be implemented first prior to any development activity on the site. So the first of four of the major site plan reviews is for hillside development. 65 acres are proposed to be disturbed and 32 acres of undisturbed open space is required. There are 96 acres provided on the subject site. 14.5 acres of slopes 30% or greater are proposed for disturbance. Um this the uh code requires an additional 2 to1 mitigation of open space in areas less than 30% slope that comes from a regional plan policy and is implemented in code and this project meets or exceed code standards. So the graphic on your screen here this is total site grading. This isn't this isn't all threshold grading. This is the total grading on the subject site. The areas in dark blue and dark red with the uh black outline are the areas of cuts and fills over the discretionary thresholds. So there are eight areas of cuts greater than 20 feet with a maximum cut on site of 40 ft and 13 areas of fill greater than 10 ft with the maximum fill of 39 ft. The cut and fill placement are consistent with the PED residential area designation and as needed for the tunnel water tanks to the very eastern portion of the site. 20% of the lots utilize split level foundation prioritized in these cut and fill areas to reduce overall grading. So grading in the parks open space and trail network designation that's the open space um designation in the PED. 15 acres of disturbed post areas are proposed and these are almost entirely to support infrastructure and park and trail amenities. Lastly, uh is the disturbance of a major drainage way. There is 0.9 acres of disturbed major drainage way. I want to point out a correction in the staff report. Uh that was the wrong number there. It's 0.9 acres uh proposed. Onethird of that would be reveated after the grading's accomplished. And this is needed to facilitate one culvert road crossing for the extension of clean jumper way into the site. The remaining major drainage way will be restored with ephemeral riparian habitat restoration and the horse fencing through m through the major drainage way will have limited disturbance as shown through the uh graphic on your screen. So the key tenative map findings uh public services and utilities are available and adjacent to the site. There are no impacts to existing vehicle level of service anticipated. The project implements PEED and Reno municipal code standards consistent with the master plan and no significant wild wildlife impacts uh are anticipated with peed standards and conditions of approval. Key major site plan review findings include compatibility and consistency with surrounding development. This comparable single family lot sizes to the Palisades and comparable entitlements. The palisades was adopted in 2014 and uh also had hillside cuts and fills and disturbance of major drainage weight approvals. Uh overall appropriateness of of uh site grading uh with with code standards and recommending conditions hillside appropriate grading. The project layout is consistent with the adopted PED and meets all RMC discretionary grading standards. As far as open space, based on hillside constraints, the project exceeds open space required including the 2 to1 30% slope mitigation. That concludes my uh presentation. The recommendation of approval is on your screen. I'm available for any questions. >> Thank you. We will now hear a presentation from the applicant. >> Good evening, planning commission. My name is Brook Oswald. I'm with the group. I also have with me uh John Mson with venture engineering tonight, civil engineer on the project. Want to thank staff for working with us on this project and and moving it forward. And uh uh we're really excited to kind of show you what we planned and and how we've met the conditions. Uh the location context, you have an idea of that. Just this is Deonte Ranch High. Uh there's an existing water tank uh there. The D is just below that. And this is the 100 approximately 161 acres of the project site. As you can see over on the master plan, as Nate mentioned, you have the single family and the the PGOS. The PGOS is really important. That's that area that's will be protected in perpetuity. That also has a regional uh tier of three, which really limits that development. So, we would see no no additional development there outside of utilities. And then our zoning is the canyons PUD handbook. We do have mineshaft drive and claim jumper way just for reference as I kind of go through this our two egress points. Uh just to go back, there's a planned unit development. Over on the right there, you can see the canyons handbook that has been uh um approved and and recorded with the county. it now it it sits on the website and that are the those are the standards that all the development in this along with RMC are approved by uh we did the PUD as we came through this to really establish a clear vision and long-term standards of that open space and housing the previous ones were a little bit different we provided a loop road so providing continual access that's great not only for the public and distributing traffic but also for emergency vehicles and other situations. Um, additionally, there were a number of villages and different housing types and we really compacted it into one village with some really straightforward standards. Uh, so we had a clear vision and predictable standards. We uh tried to balance that neighborhood and open space. We we've got 119 almost 120 acres open space and 40 acres. So, uh, literally 3/4 of the site is open space. Um, we added uh parks, trails, and community amenities within there. And then that stewardship and habitat restoration that Nate mentioned and then uh safe and efficient hillside development that's looking at our drainage utilities infrastructure and and those hillside conditions as far as and then moving on to the ten map. The stage we are tonight and looking for the approval is the uh we've aligned with the PUD handbook and Reno municipal code. So we've worked with staff to make sure everything is is meeting both those standards. We've uh we really used an efficient hillside land use. We've gotund single 110 single family homes on the site within that 42 acres with that looped road. And this is really uh planned that growth of the city and thoughtful sort of community growth and and and establishing a a place in neighborhood in this area. We've got that strong development to open space balance. As I said, it's it's 3:1 um that we're doing there. our homes are clustered really preserving those areas and then where we are disturbing we're going forward and enhancing we provide that safe access connectivity public recreation uh that's our roadway our circulation we have in internal trail sessions uh internal trail connections uh we were originally working on a regional trail system that was that is uh still in in the works there that was um led by Truckucky Meadows Park Foundation. they have since uh folded as a nonprofit. That money has been moved otherwhere, but I did recently talk to people involved in that and they're looking to uh find new funds and to get that project going. So, we're really excited that this will be part of that uh infrastructure utilities and our our supporting technical reports. We've provided a sewer, traffic, uh geotech already. Those have all been analyzed by by engineering and and we meet the standards to move forward. Uh, additionally, we're our water tank that we're seeing on our our hillside up here. Looks like I should have been pushing the button. I apologize. Uh, so this is the larger park area. This park area has the trail head which has parking which is unique in this site. Additionally, there's a number of amenities that required to have public art and uh uh shade structures within this area. Our second park down here will be slated as a dog park and additionally has shade structures and art. And then looking at the utilities that I was speaking of before, those are moving up. Those are up in that PGOS area that is allowed uh per code for us to do. Those are designated by uh TAMWA, the location and size and access to those tanks. So we've worked with them to make sure that we're meeting their standards. And then finally, uh the habitat restoration, sustainability, and long-term stewardship. There is this uh habitat uh management plan that's included with this. Not only does it uh slate what will be planted in what areas, as Nate went through, it goes through different abilities of how um it will be maintained, structured. So, it provides opportunities for check-ins. Additionally, the PUD requires another $250 per home that will go back into the HOA that can only be used to help maintain and fulfill that habitat. Oftentimes, what we see in in HOAs is the open space some sometimes can be neglected or not further taken care of. So, we've tried to put a framework in place to move forward to to protect this in uh perpetuity. I do have one condition modification. I did send this out uh earlier and and uh have talked to many of you about it and staff uh staff is wanting uh sidewalks on both sides in front of the homes. What we're requesting is that we we have the ability to look at this again through the public works design manual and RMC which uh both allow in a hillside situation to have sidewalk on one side and to determine as we move through the final map how to do that. Um I am proposing a condition on basically that says just that a large portion of this is to reduce our overall grading. We really have to stay within that 42. We'd really like to uh minimize our impacts. This being a relatively small community with no uh without a lot of connections and no thoroughfare. We've we feel that sidewalk on one side along with the trail uh system is sufficient. Additionally, if you look down the Palisades and surrounding neighborhoods, you're seeing similar development patterns of one sidewalk in those hillside areas. So, the project summary, efficient land use. We're really trying to use that land that we can to provide housing, amenities, and open space. We've hit those consistent with our city policies. We've our stakeholder and agency coordination has been through parks uh regional nonprofits uh many state agencies including Nevada Department of Wildlife, Nevada Department of Agriculture. Uh we've we have sustainability uh components within this and trying to build a resilient community both towards fire and other things. We've worked with the state forest uh group to help on uh future uh WOOI issues uh protection, restoration, enhancement of those natural resources. Not only the habitat restoration, but looking at that drainage way and the importance of that. We've moved homes back our our bridge and covert area. Not um is an open bottom which allows uh wildlife to move more easily through there. So, we've gone kind of an extra effort. We have a for this size and the hillside environment, great public recreation and trail connectivity. And then we are contributing to the housing affordability goals, there is a $1,000 donation that will be required per home that will go back to the city to help uh for further further affordability. Uh that's the conclusion of my uh presentation. I'm available for questions as needed. Thank you. >> Thank you. We will now go to dis disclosures starting here in person and then we will go to public comment. Commissionerto. >> Uh Commissioner Valto received and reviews reviewed emails as well as uh reviewed the packet. >> Commissioner Jockman phone call with applicant representative read and reviewed materials. >> Commissioner Williams read and reviewed materials and uh emails. Commissioner Delvr read and reviewed materials and had a call with the um applicant representative. >> Commissioner Roar Meer read and reviewed emails. I'm familiar with the site. >> Commissioner uh Commissioner Visera spoke with the applicants representative Brooklyn. I read and reviewed the material provided including agency feedback and public comment. uh I guess for history took a personal 101 tour of the site with the late Tom Bolan and was privy to his vision of the project and I was part of this item when it came before us the summer of 24 and voted in favor of it then >> and Commissioner Gunfentini I see you just hopped back on we're doing disclosures for the canyons >> commissioner Gianini read and reviewed the materials >> thank you madame clerk public comment Yes. We'll start on Zoom um with Judy Covert, then Kevin Williams. Judy, just unmute your mic. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. >> Hi. Can you hear me? >> Hello. >> Hello. Hello. Hello. >> Yes, we can hear you. Please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. >> Judy Covert, 105 Gold Mine Drive, Reno, Nevada 89521. I uh live in this 577 home development and this project has had many iterations. Um and I have specific questions which I did send to the planning commission public comment. I don't know if you received those. >> Uh Miss Covert, we are getting an echo. I don't know. Is there anything you're able to do on your end? I know. I'm getting the Echo, too, and I don't know what's wrong. >> Are you listening on um two devices, Judy? >> I'm on the laptop. >> Okay. >> Uh please proceed. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I I assume that you received my comments and questions >> and since then, um they're talking about public trail. Um, and does that part of or is that part of the Demani Foothills Landscape Maintenance Association maintenance? I mean, we pay as homeowners to maintain our trails and we also pay as homeowners to maintain our ditches which will >> have drains from this project. >> That's my question. Judy, you'll if you want to use up the rest of your time, you have a minute and a half. Um, there'll be an opportunity for the applicant to answer your questions if they'd like after public comment is over. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next up is Kevin Williams. Kevin, unmute your mic and state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. >> Okay. Um, so my phone died. This is Tanya Tavar, so I'm going to talk in place of Kevin. Is that okay? No problem, Tanya. Go ahead. >> Okay. Okay. So, um, first of all, I'm a very longtime resident of Nevada for 52 years. Um, and I've seen quite a lot of change and some growth is fine. But when it starts u taking away from beautiful open space and mountain ranges and impedes on wildlife, then I'm totally not for it. Um, so please, I'm asking that um the developers leave access to the gate at Mineshaft. So people can still walk their dogs there and do off-roading and um look at the beautiful mountains that we have done and it's been accessed for so long. Um and also for emergency access for any emergency vehicles. Um so anyways, I just thought I would add that in there and uh to please leave the access of mine shaft gate so that people can go up there. Um okay. So thank you. >> Thank you Tanya. Next up, we have Karen Zachara. >> Hello. Hello. >> Yeah, Karen, we're getting a bit of an echo there. If there's anything you can do, um, but if not, just state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. >> Okay. Is that better? >> That's perfect. Thank you. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. Go ahead. Can you hear us? Karen, we can hear you. >> My question is during the construction phase, there is only a couple neighborhood roads that allow access to that area right now. So, I'm just wondering, will there be construction trucks driving up our neighborhood streets to get to this project? Because as I see it, again, there's only just a couple roads that have access to that area. >> Karen, does that conclude your comment? they're not able to answer your questions during public comment. So, if you want to use all your time. >> Sure. >> My second question, and I'm not sure whether or not you were able to um point this out, but there's a road on the west side of the hill of the There's a road on the west side of the hillside. It was originally presented in the 2024 as an emergency access road only, but their current map shows it as a more regular road for access to the park and trail head. This means a larger road and deeper cuts into the hillside. This should not be allowed is my opinion. Um this was originally something that was denied to them, the developers back in 21 and 22 and now it just appears as though it's being kind of snuck into the project. That concludes my questions. If there's anyone else on Zoom who would like to make public comment, please raise your hand at this time. Um, I have not received any request to speak forms in chambers. Okay. Oh, Karen, that was just Karen. No one else on Zoom. Okay. Uh, hearing no more online. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time on this item? Please raise your hand if so. Hearing none, that concludes public comment for this item. We will now entertain questions from the commission. I'll I'll start. >> Commissioner Williams. >> Commissioner Williams, for the record. Uh, one for the applicant. >> I I just want to cons confirm that. Um, are we to disregard the other suggestions you made to us via email about conditions you wish and solely focus on the sidewalks on one side of the street? >> Yeah, I've been looking at that. We're comfortable with that. We are just looking at >> Okay. I believe your microphone is not on yet. Uh, Cali, can we check if that microphone is on at the podium? >> Perfect. >> And the answer, just for the record, was >> you say that again? >> You I I I sent an email to the planning commission previously. We looked at a few of the conditions and just had some, they were minor, everything was really a minor concern. Really, our concern is about the ability to work with staff on sidewalk on one side to reduce some of those grading impacts, and that's all we're asking. We're in agreement with everything else. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Mhm. Uh, Commissioner DelviR. >> Uh, thank you. Um, you this is a question for you, Brooke, if you don't mind staying up there. Um, so we we did receive a lot of correspondence. Um, and so I just want to clarify a couple of things. Um, and and first is we're we're not here to decide if we're going to have a community there. The the PUD is already in place. Um, we're here solely to currently look at the tenative map um, and the site plan review. I just want to make sure that people understand that that's that's what what our role is here for this right now. Um, but I did have a couple of questions for you. Um, you talked in the presentation um about the um erosion and how you are going to help mitigate not that you're creating erosion and then mitigating that erosion, but just that there has been erosion there in the past and ways that you're looking at mitigating that. So, I'm I'm wondering if you could um talk to that a little bit. >> Yeah. Uh Brooke Oswald, for the record, uh also I'm a a registered landscape architect in the state of Nevada and have worked extensively in wildlife rehabilitation or restoration and stuff throughout my career. And so, I was really excited about this project and that the the uh owners of the property allowed me to kind of uh do more than is required. And so, uh, we've tried to minimize our grading. Those slopes, uh, where we're we're doing would normally just have to be, uh, regressed or receded where we disturbed. And as Nate mentioned, those areas that aren't disturbed, we wouldn't really be required to do anything. What we've done through our, uh, plan is actually and working with Endow and uh, vegetation specialists, we've devised some seed mixes and different things that we can actually enhance that area. Um the area has been, you know, you have off-road use, we've had fires in the area, and then we've had kind of an excessive grading. And so the native habitat has really been um impacted. And now with the fence going in and and and the regulation of off-road vehicles and establishing and having actually a financial mechanism to help take care of this, we actually think we can build the create a better habitat and better environment for wildlife. Great. Thank you. And then if I may, I have just one more question for now. Um and again, I saw a lot of questions come up and and um from public comment about uh public public open space. Um and you mentioned in your uh presentation um about passive and active. Um but just for just for clarity, the space that we're talking about right now is actually private. It's it's a private >> it's a private lot, right? It's not >> That is correct. That's 61 acres that it is all private. Uh there is no public property on that. Uh they have uh people the public has had access to that property and the the Dolans and property owners have allowed sort of that to go through or to to happen and and have it encouraged it and know that it is a beautiful site and that connectivity to that that area is a is amazing. That's one of the most beautiful canyons we have along the Virginia range. Um what this does is actually establish a dedicated trail network and those connections it those parks and the open space that is all private. It'll be uh there'll be a a easement a public access easement. So that allows the public to use the parks to use the trails to to uh enjoy that open space. And so really it creates a a stronger um security that the public will have access to that public land if it versus if it just stayed in uh an undeveloped state. It could be posted no trespass or whatever if if decided by a not that they would but it could be >> great. Thank you. I I have I have a few more questions but I'll I'll yield for now. >> Commissioner Bera I see you drop back in and you had your hand raised previously. Yep. Please proceed. >> Great. Thank you so much. Um, yeah, let's see here. You know, uh, hey, Brooke. Um, just going to ask a couple questions, I think, from, uh, the input that you received. Um, I guess during construction, uh, what what specific conditions limit the, uh, hall routes, staging, and peak hour interference to the existing neighborhood or residents? >> Sure. As that as that goes through, there's there's u sort of city standards and there's some protocols that how that happens. uh they would be working with city staff. Obviously, there's there's input from the surrounding neighborhood. Nate could probably speak to better to that process and what would be anticipated, but it's really looking at when that grading and those things start. Uh trying to minimize those impacts as much as possible on the surrounding neighborhoods. That would be through distances, times of operation, and a number of other mechanisms that try to limit uh during the construction phase the impacts All right. Awesome. >> Uh, yes, please proceed. Commissioner Visera. >> Commissioner Viser, we're losing your audio. Maybe if we can come back to you in one minute or try again. >> Um, you just kind of clarify the easements right? >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat that, Manny? >> Commissioner Bisera, could you please restate your question? >> Okay, we will circle back to Commissioner Ber. Can >> you clarify that U [laughter] people aren't going to be taxes? Chair Dman, can we come back to Commissioner Bisera? Maybe. >> Commissioner Biser, we we'll come back to you in one minute. >> Maybe Kelly can text him or something and say, >> "Do we have any uh Commissioner DelviR? I see your hand raised." >> Yeah, I believe what he's trying to uh understand is uh to the point that was made, will the public still have access via whether it's the gate at mine shaft or looks like there's a road there now? I think that was his question. Um, that was actually part of my question as well. >> Yes, we'd we'd see the extension of not only the sidewalks, but we have a trail system that runs uh sort of along the hillside uh parallel to the uh proposed access road, meaning the park and those other areas, and it ties in uh to some existing utility easements and other things that have historically been used to access that. So, that would be open to the public. >> Great. Awesome. And just one more question. Um it's about I know you worked really closely with the different wildlife organizations which which I really appreciate. Um but can you kind of talk a little bit about what what some of the plans are because I know you have sort of like um interesting culverts and gates and fences and things like that to protect the wildlife. >> Certainly we you know I think it all starts with that that fence plan. Uh that that fence plan is a a five the standard five uh no barbed wire fence to keep the horses out. That's all, you know, for the safety of the horses and the public. Um, that does not preclude wildlife from moving under or over those. Deer will go over a fence, a 4ft fence quite easily and coyotes and everything else will move move through that. So, we're not restricting the wildlife through moving in that area. We've maintained that um the uh the drainage way and what what you see with um wildlife, they often use those drainage ways to move between different points. So that maintaining that drainage way allows them to move all the way down through the Palisades development all the way back up through the canyon. So we're maintaining that access. We've also provided through that habitat providing cover and forage the ability to move both north and south across the site. Now um we've created several different plant pallets that promote forage uh cover uh pollination and number of other things. And so we're trying to build build it more holistically in uh creating the base structure of basically if we build it they'll come right. That's what we're looking with the wildlife. >> Great. Thank you. >> I got one. >> Commissioner Williams. >> I got one for you. U Commissioner Williams for the record. Now that I know you're a landscape architect, uh I I went a little off path here, but um I'm pretty sure last week the council signed the 2026 wildlife or wildland fire protection um you know, series of things. Um one two two trees that I heard on there that um last time I checked the pinions and the jup Jupiters junipers are highly flammable and and a lot of neighborhoods are moving away from them. Um can you talk about maybe how those will be planted so they don't become a fire risk and with all this new things are >> certainly as part of moving through this and trying to determine the best trees and how to do this I worked with the it's called the stewardship program it's through the state's forestry department so not only it's reestablished so that area has really been burned out before and the trees haven't you know come back and and so what we have identified we'll continue to identify areas that are away and safe from the homes so the homes will protected, but that we can start to establish some of the native um native tree systems and stuff. Again, that's not only for erosion, but a lot of the natives actually have better fire protection in some ways against uh some of the non-native plants. Um, you know, we'll continue to work with them. Also, we'll work with uh our our uh city fire to make sure that we're meeting our standards on each home in the WOOI. And as that wooie goes understanding too that now we're moving hydrants up into that area and we're moving a we've created the loop road so we have great access. We're also created that um per that condition the access across the hillside. What you don't want to see is you have to go up a neighborhood and then fires got to go back down and go up a neighborhood. So we're trying to keep a continual across that top so they can actually fight a fire. So we've we've spent quite a bit of time um with the stewardship program looks not only at habitat but looks at the WOOI and and fire specifically. So, we'll continue to work with them. >> Okay, great. Thank you, >> Commissioner Bisera. >> Great. Thank you. Um, hey, Brooke. I just going to re ask the question because I I don't think it got through all the way. Um, the the the PED requires public access easements and prohibits locked pedestrian aster gates. Uh correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. cuz we we heard concerns about potential loss of trail access like near around mine shaft gate and so um I guess just one more time I guess could you confirm that uh public access will remain >> public access will remain um it will I would say would be improved uh we have the money to build you know new trail systems maintain those trail systems they'll meet some uh both forest service standards and some ADA standards that we've been trying to implement in the trail system. So, >> fantastic. And that kind of tees me up for my followup. Uh you you mentioned m maintain and there was some a question about maintenance and so who is responsible for trail maintenance for this particular project or region? Is it is it the developer, an HOA, the city, another entity all in one? >> So just like the development below it where they're required to maintain their uh drainageways and trails, this would be the same. there's a there'll be an HOA or a landscape maintenance association depending on how they they form and want to do it and that they will be responsible for that long-term financing and maintenance of of the open space and areas. >> All right, great. And then just one last one uh uh I guess kind of pivoting towards our other um topic horses. How how will gate monitoring and fereral horse management function operationally over time? So we've worked with uh both the NDA, the city h has set a number of standards over a period of time and and then we've also worked with the advocates and so uh establishing that prior to any construction or anything for both the safety of the public and the horses uh the initial outer perimeter fence will go in. So that will prevent and make sure the neighborhoods are there as the construction crews are going through and and and doing that. We've also worked on gate and pedestrian gates. And so we have no pass horse gates where pedestrians can move through. We have um locked gates in case horses or can move through or the easements, utility easements that they can move through. So we've created another number of different ways to make sure that we're we're trying to keep the horses out and safe and and let the people still access and move through that area. >> Fantastic. Thank you, Brooke. Seeing no other hands raised, uh, Commissioner Jockman, I'll ask a question. And this one will be directed at staff for this question. Would it be possible to put, uh, Kelly the the proposed condition that came from the applicant as a part of their presentation? [snorts] And my my question is really just this. I recognize it's on the fly, but this is a condition that came from the applicant after the staff report. So, is there anything that staff would like to add or uh >> share at this time? And then is there anything that you think we should consider in our deliberations for the review of this modified condition that's proposed? >> Absolutely. That's condition number 23 that came from development services engineering and public works. Uh what they were asking for is that that the project uh adhere to the public works design manual. And so that would only allow for a lack of of sidewalk um if there's not um let's say there's uh only one row of homes right and then the road that you'd only need one sidewalk. But every everywhere that there's there's um homes uh on both sides of the street or a park, uh they requested that there be a sidewalk. Um you know, that certainly furthers uh pedestrian safety and circulation goals. However, I would point out that the planning commission has the ability to to wave that uh to have them on one side. That would be consistent with the Palisades development which was done similarly with the hillside development with sidewalk on one side. So this says completely up to the purview of the planning commission. That's the recommendation of public works and development services engineering. >> Okay. Thank you. And and just to clarify that you said that the adjacent development has there's precedent there for sidewalk on >> west 260 lot subdivision and the palisades to the to the west um has a similar pattern. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Sheriff, if I could clarify, if you do modify uh that condition, I would have some suggested modifications. >> Would it? Yeah. Um, Madame Clerk, would it be possible to get the phrasing of that condition on the >> Is it in the applicant's presentation or the staff? >> It's in the applicant's >> applicant. You might want to just click to the slide if you can, Kelly. You'll have to go through a number of animations. Can I um kind of add on to that while you guys are trying to pull that up? >> Sure, Commissioner Delvier. >> Um yeah, so I had I had questions about that and and maybe Nate, you're going to cover that in this rewrite, but um I love the fact that they were going to have sidewalks on both sides, but understand that there might be some um restrictions. But my question really goes to who who decides where where it's okay to only have a sidewalk on one side and and what that looks like. So I don't know Nate if you can if Yeah. Thank you. >> Yep. That's a great question and that's why I would suggest this modification. Um so modification to condition number 23 if the planning commission would like to entertain um the sidewalk on the one side as presented in in the site plans. So the grading plans as presented um I would I would suggest modifying condition number 23 to read as it is prior to approval of the final map the applicant shall at a minimum provide for adequate pedestrian circulation and this is where the change would come consistent with exhibit B. Right? Because the way this this is proposed my concern is to Commissioner Delvr's point is well public works could look at this and say well no we don't want to. [laughter] So that's the planning commission intent. I I think you know again uh all conditions of approval are to the satisfaction of staff and I think um that that would clarify the intent um with the grading in the sidewalk as proposed. >> Okay. Thank you. So just to be clear, your proposed modification of condition 23 is to rephrase it such that uh the adequate pedestrian circulation is consistent with what is shown in exhibit B. >> Correct. as a part of this >> inconsistent being the key word >> that staff flexibility. >> Okay. Thank you. No questions from me at this time. Commissioner Bera. >> Great. Thank you. Yeah, I I think uh we're all kind of leaning towards the same line of questioning here. Just more clarity. So Nate, your your proposed like amendments, it's a small one, but it's it's big in the grand scheme of things, right? So it's like would you say that that's middle ground for the applicant and for the community in a sense and for you guys um behind the scenes at the city? Is that the middle ground solution? The >> the middle ground solution. It's just a clarification of what the applicant's requesting. Want to make sure that there's no no ambiguity there. And so again, if the planning commission um elects to um divert from standard public works design manual, that's at your pleasure. You're able to do that. >> Okay. So, kind of on that, what what what's the trade-off here, right? Um what do we what what's what's what do we I guess as a city, as a community or ever, you know, stakeholders of that project, what's the trade-off? What are we giving up if we give up a a a sidewalk? >> So, there could be potentially more grading um associated if they had to accommodate that. >> Um the trade-off would be uh public safety and enhanced circulation. But again, I' I'd reiterate that the Palisad subdivision um was is designed in a in the same fashion where there's a sidewalk on only on one side of the road, >> right? And and kind of on that, um how has that worked for for them? Has has that worked out just fine? No issues, no public safety concerns. >> I I can't speak to that. >> Okay. Well, I guess that's the that's the hard part, right? It's like I know we're saying that it's been done, but if we don't necessarily have insights on how it's, you know, been executed or what's the result of having done that, it's hard for us to evaluate it, you know, as a comparable, I suppose. Uh, [clears throat] but it does help. Thank you Nate. >> Uh, Commissioner Roar Meer. >> Oh, you know what? I actually meant um I'm my comments are for discussion, not questions. Sorry. >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Delvi, >> I mean, this is for for Brooke. Um, maybe uh you can help us understand why you wanted to put this condition in and that might help us understand um if it's a condition we want to um change. >> Sure. Um and I think I kind of give a little justification mod for the modification up there. We're we're working in a hillside development context um providing um sidewalks on both sides. It increases our overg grading impact and we are limited on our development area and some of those things and so every time you push out further it just creates more impact on the open space. That that's kind of the first and more retaining walls and other sort of interests. Um the code does allow us to do that. We just want the ability to do that. Um, we do have a trail system that provides other connection points and abilities to move and and connectivity and we just want to really balancing the safety with environmental sensitivity and and grading efficiency. Um, while we're we're adhering to the standards, we're in agreement with uh what Nate proposed and and we'd be we'd be uh in support of that. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Do we have any other questions from the commission at this time? >> Well, I'll ask one more, sir. >> Um, I'll have some for this for our discussion within the count uh commission, but uh I come from a community that has alternating sidewalks. >> Um, and generally it's just fine except for the portions that tend to cross the road. And we have a couple particular that are on bins >> um to which we've tried to add crossing beacons, you know, high visibility paint. Um it it's just inherently a terrible place to cross. Um, can you I think the commission's generally all talking about this issue about one sidewalk and I'm generally supportive, but can you clarify like when you go to switch sides of the street from one side to the other or if that's not even going to happen, how you would do that so to mitigate where they're crossing is generally with inside of some type of idea of not on curves. >> Certainly, I think our first priority would be to avoid those situations where we're doing that and maintain sidewalk. you know, if there was a design or something where it had to modify, um the condition that that staff's proposing allows us to work with staff to find an appropriate solution. So, if that is uh modifying the crossing or extending a sidewalk or crosswalks or some other sort of um acceptable traffic control in that area, we'd be immunable to that. >> Okay. So, during the design phase of that, you're willing to work with staff and staff's capable of directing you guys in appropriate crossings. Correct. Okay, great. Thank you. >> Uh, Commissioner Roar Meer, is this questions? >> Yeah, I just um was hoping that we could take a look at the blue and red cuts and fills map one more time. >> Madame Clerk, I believe that is exhibit one minute. And with that, I wanted to ask the question, not sure if this is engineering. Um, explain to me from looking at that map, how reducing a 4ft sidewalk is going to improve cuts and fills cuz it looked like that was not going to do much to mitigate um anything. Uh, Brook Oswald for the record. I'll I'll try to answer that at a high level and and then I can um I will punt to the engineering if if it's uh doesn't work. So, uh 4ft sidewalks are not allowed. So, we would be looking at a minimum of 5 to six foot sidewalk. Additionally, when you start to get on those hillsides, you can have an additional 2 ft of um uh banter or safe space outside your sidewalk. You just can't have a sidewalk run straight off a hillside. So you start to run in, you know, you can move now six feet, now you're up to 8 feet. Some areas might require 10. Now, if you do this over a period of of where the roads line up, that does start to push out uh depending on the areas and the slopes that are there that it it could be quite impactful or it in a a lower sloped area, it could be less impactful. But as you notice, we've got, you know, some steep slopes we're trying to navigate both for the safety and circulation and and uh to provide those home sites. So, if that does that answer your question, >> realistically, I guess because the neighbors asked for the sidewalk on both sides, how much of the 30% plus slopes, which are the ones that we're most concerned about constraints, would be saved or preserved um if we went to a single sidewalk? you know, we didn't do those calculations. I can do you have a general estimate, John, of what I think in some areas, you know, we we wouldn't want to you you once you start grading, you start chasing your tail a little bit. Um because now you have another impact. We're a little nervous that could create where we have retaining walls or others. you can often times comp uh combine impacts that that could actually have significant grading impacts overall. >> Great. I'm just not getting a lot of conclusive information here, but I appreciate it. >> Okay. Any other questions from the commission or would we like to move to deliberation? Hearing none, we will move to deliberation. Commissioner Roar Meyer. >> I mean, we've already heard the PUD, so I, you know, this project is already been planned for. Um, I just really don't see a lot of benefit in this case, having seen the cuts and fills plan um for waving the sidewalk on both sides. Now, normally in a hillside, anything to preserve the landscape is important, but the way this is designed and the way it sits on the hill, I'm not seeing a lot of benefit. So, in terms of that, I I just sort of I don't see the necessity there. >> I believe Commissioner Bisera, you were next. >> Uh, great. Thank you. Just wanted to quick remark that uh uh hillside development carries just a higher burden and um really looking at the minimizing of the scarring the protection of the drainageways and preserving of that visual character to the extent feasible. Um so uh I'm generally I think leaning towards uh supporting this project as I did before when it was before us in the summer of 24. uh just kind of still noodling on on this proposed amendment here that's before us or this new condition. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on it as well. >> Commissioner Delvr. >> Um yeah, so I I I appreciate um the work that's gone into it. I appreciate the um efforts working to preserve wildlife and public access and and things like that. and as it was written by staff, I can make those findings. I do have concerns about uh the um the condition um that the applicant would like in there. Um so that's that's really the only issue I have right now and that's technically not part of [sighs] uh what was presented by staff. So from that standpoint, I'm I'm okay. I just probably would not put that condition in. Commissioner Williams. >> Commissioner Williams, for the record, uh like I was saying, I I come from a community, a large one, that um we alternate uh various sides and um they're very successful and it makes a lot of sense. So, I'm I'm happy to support um the exhibit B amendment. um as long as that we were on the same page about where those crossings happen, uh I thought this plan was well designed and uh very well explained and there was a lot of thought gone into it. So um I'm happy to support this project could make all the findings and uh would support exhibit B being added to the conditions. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I I'm undecided at the moment as to whether or not we should proceed forward with a modified condition or stick with that of staff. The exhibit B includes uh portions of the site that do not currently have sidewalk on both sides. So, the the proposed staff condition pushes them to sidewalks that would result in cuts and fills that are greater than what we are seeing in exhibit B. Uh, am I correct in that statement, Mr. Alley? Yes. So, um I I recognize we would we would result in more hillside grading with that condition as the applicant would move forward beyond what's being shown to us today. Uh I'm weighing that against how this is uh there is precedent in the adjacent development for sidewalk on one side of the street. I do see this as a low volume generally low pedestrian environment. This is not like Midtown or downtown or many other parts of town where I would be unwavering to that sidewalk requirement on both sides. So, I'm I'm still undecided. I haven't thought this through and I'd like to hear more from the commission before making a decision. Commissioner Visera. >> Great. Thank you. Uh same kind of that same place as as you Commissioner Jackman. Um, and I think there was a couple things that you you brought up that we spoke to earlier uh with Nate and and that was that uh you know there is a quote unquote precedent but there isn't necessarily data to support how that's worked right um and I think my correct me if I'm wrong because this has kind of been come up from time to time while we say there's precedent we don't really rely on precedent correct like we're supposed to review each project kind of standalone That's correct. However, I think what Mr. Gilbert was trying to convey is that this would be the proposed modification would be consistent with the development that's directly adjoining which essentially this is this project will serve as an extension of the existing neighborhood that's up there. So from that perspective, a precedent has been set that within the same neighborhood, there's sidewalk on one side of the street. >> Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks, Mike. I guess what would just be helpful is um I guess maybe for the future is uh for such projects is if we can have data or just insights on how these deviations if you will or these additional conditions to deviate from the standard uh has worked out. >> Yeah. And I will say that you know we typically see these um either first on private roads or in hillside areas. And the reason that we that we consider them in hillside areas is for the very reason that the applicant is is arguing it reduces grading and the overall impacts given that this this site is grading intensive and has steep slopes. Um that's why I think you know it it could be an appropriate modification in this case. >> Okay, great. And and and you would feel good with the the modified condition Mike and by extension staff, you know, Mr. Gilbert. >> Yes. Okay, great. Thanks, Mike. >> And Commissioner Bera, for my interest there, could you please clarify that the modified condition is that of the phrasing uh previously stated by staff or the applicant? >> Well, actually the the applicant. So, I guess my question is, do you feel comfortable with the proposed modified condition as presented by applicant, which then was I think modified by staff a little bit? We staff would recommend going with the modification as presented by staff by Mr. Gilbert. >> Oh, by Mr. Gilbert. Okay, perfect. Thank you. >> I think I guess that's where I'll I'll be leaning towards right now. >> Understood. Commissioner Valto, >> could I just like to hear from uh Brooke a little bit more on the rationale for the the one sidewalk? I don't know if you have anything to add. Just I want to kind of get a full understanding. >> Yeah, you bet. Um, I also live in a neighborhood, a hillside neighborhood has one sidewalk. It works quite well for the amount of traffic. I think as you're seeing hillsides, you're seeing a little bit more limited people actually going up and down the hills, right? So, you're you're reducing your overall amount of people that are using it. Uh, those those areas are are low traffic areas. So, to come out of your yard and to look both ways and to walk across to the other sidewalk, I've done it several times and never have a a problem with it. Um, you know, I think you you as I was saying, those overall grading and reducing that grading where we have a very, as Mike said, a very intensive side of grading, uh, is really important to, you know, important to reduce that and to reduce our overall development area that that expands your development area out also. And so it starts to minimize your your open space. We are constrained per the handbook to that 40 acres and 119. We have to meet that. And so what we're concerned about is if we get pushed and pushed out that we are going to start to struggle to meet meet some of those numbers. Um we we do feel that additional of the trail system that connects both north, south, east, and west provides these other great mechanisms of travel. Um it is consistent with the Palisades. I'm up in that neighborhood. I've been going up to that neighborhood working on this project for eight years now. Um the the sidewalks work well up there. I've never seen any accidents, incidents or any other pec, you know, anything peculiar on it. You usually have uh people out walking in the morning and then you see people coming home and walking in the evening and then oftentimes you'll see, you know, kids going down to the school bus, but most of the time the the parents are driving their kids and and that in that particular situation. So I I don't one I don't think it's necessary. I think it does improve those uh overall great impact impacts. Additionally, those sidewalks, public work, they become the property of the city of Reno. We'd anticipate that they are responsible for maintaining those in the long and and so that's is a potentially more of a burden to a taxpayer in a situation that we don't need to see an additional sidewalk. >> Can I have a follow-up question on that? So, I guess I'm trying to understand if um so is the result of there only being sidewalks on one side of the road that the lots are bigger. So, if you're basically taking away like 3 ft of sidewalk, will the lots just be bigger or will there be less space that is developed and therefore more natural? >> We would kind of open space. lots would be staying the the potentially the same size and so you'd be moving out the sidewalk because we have a front setback and some other things that we need to meet. So you start to get in a little little bit of that when determining on where the rideway is established and some of those other things in that case. >> Commissioner Roar Meyer. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I just wanted to u make sure I understood some of the things that were said prop uh previously. one that if we actually um I think chair Jockman said that this deviation could then if actually create large higher let's see higher fills and deeper cuts. Did I understand that correctly? >> That was my understanding. If you're directing that at the applicant, uh please testify. >> Yes. I I I'm sorry. I just was confirming what I heard. But is that true? >> Uh yes. And I I confirmed that with the civil engineer that once you start to have additional, you know, a sidewalk needs to be 3% across. And once you start to do that, that does start to uh potentially um impact both your cuts and your fills to make sure that you can get that that sidewalk in. >> Okay. So I my and then my next question again about the motivation here is that I think is it not true that the concern is that meeting that open space requirement might have to be um offset by a reduction in lots. >> Uh that potentially could happen based on that we are limited to our development area for the PUB. So, okay. So, I just wanted to make that clear like we're the neighbors have asked or at least a public comment has asked for a sidewalk on both street sides of the street and I didn't think I would care this much except that that was a comment that came second that there is potentially more cuts and fills therefore more aesthetic impacts and worse grading situation with this deviation. And then third, the fear is that there's a reduction in the number of lots you can develop. Um, I just want to make clear what I understand. So, I appreciate that. >> Yes. >> So, we pivoted back to questions there. Do we have any other questions at this time? Let's go back in. Commissioner Valto. >> Sorry. I want to follow up on Commissioner Warm's question. Um, can you explain to me why there would be worse cuts and fills with less sidewalk? Oh, with less sidewalk we would have we would not have worse. I I I may have misunderstanding. I thought she was saying with the sidewalk if we're required to go forward and have sidewalk on both sides, we would have increased cuts in potentially increased cuts and fills and we would anticipate we would per the the engineering and that would impact the aesthetic and the open space areas also because we are limited on our development area. If we're required to push those out, that could start to have an impact of our overall density. And I get that, but it was it was the first part because I I don't know if I heard it wrong, but I So I heard the conversation with you and Commissioner Warm is you saying that if we had sidewalks on both sides, there'd be less cuts and fills, but you're saying there >> more cuts and fills. >> Understood. So perhaps I misheard relative to exhibit B. Understood. Yeah. >> Higher and cuts and fill. Yes. To exhibit B. And we we had worked with staff. So, we we've we've um moved through two different staff people originally working with a previous staff member who we've actually been working on sidewalks and finding the appropriate way. So, we spent a lot of time with staff. We do have sidewalk in a lot of places on both sides where down closer where we thought that we would have a little bit more conjunction to provide that safety on both sides and then we do go to sidewalk on one side where we feel that it it it's you know adequate to serve the needs and connectivity. >> Understood. Thank you. Commissioner Roire. >> Yeah, I appreciate that clarification. I understood that there it had been said that the sidewalk on both sides would result in less cuts in Okay. So, no, I appreciate the clarification. It would it would yeah we we'd anticipate higher cut you know greater cuts and and greater fills to try to to get the the the flat space as it were in in the uh development project. >> So uh this is Commissioner Jockman. I guess what I'll say, and this isn't a a question, but it's in my eyes, the way that we're reviewing this, we've we've got some comments in the line of hillside disturbance, wanting to minimize that. We've got public comments requesting pedestrian facilities. I I view these to be in direct conflict in for this application, and we've we've got to weigh those those comments against each other. And if I I mean I think it it's um I think that yes, it is a balance, but I think it there there it's not necessarily a trade-off. The connectivity is still being provided. I don't know if you could say you're actually going to have more safety or connectivity with the other sidewalk in other places where you I see great connectivity through my neighborhood, other neighborhoods with one. We're seeing that down below. So I think that you know looking at that we are providing still connectivity and safety while we are trying to protect the environment which has been one of the core sort of visions of both connectivity and and uh open space enhancement in this project. Thank you for letting me speak. >> Thank you >> Commissioner Bizera. >> Great. Thank you. I just wanted to uh yeah just uh acknowledge I guess the the applicant. uh you you all have done a really fine job with this. Um you know, outside of this particular item that we're discussing with the amended condition, uh I think it's a it's a well put together project. Um I think right now based on what I've heard so far, I'm leaning towards staff's version of their condition. Um, but I'm still open, you know, to to be convinced to support, I guess, the applicant's proposed version if there's more deliberation. Otherwise, if there isn't, I I'll lean towards uh deferring to staff's recommendation. >> Uh, Commissioner Bera, I'll weigh in on that as well. This is Commissioner Jockman speaking about that. The um exhibit B shows sidewalk on both sides of the road in a number of locations. across the site. So, if we do follow that and and I'm following you here in your your thoughts, if we follow that recommendation for a modified phrasing of condition 23 as stated by staff, that will still result in sidewalk on both sides in uh at least a few locations that I can see uh throughout the site. So, so I'm I'm moving along the lines of that modified condition myself. Commissioner Alto. >> Uh yes, I would agree with you. Uh Chair, I'm in line with the modified condition as well. >> Uh Chair Jockman, can I just confirm? So what you just said was that you would lean towards it because there are still particular areas that have two sidewalks. Um and we're just talking about modifying the areas that only have or that are proposed for one. So, you're okay with a a blend of two and one which would accomplished by the exhibit B condition? >> Commissioner Jockman. So, my my primary logic there is that staff has the opportunity to weigh in. We're not conditioning them with two sidewalks in every location and staff has already weighed in on this exhibit on some level. So they they've seen it and we know that with that phrasing the resulting uh final buildout will not be meaningfully different than what we're looking at today. If if if we go with the condition the applicant will have to incur greater cuts and fills, more grading more more impact to the hillside. if they stick with exhibit B, they're afforded the opportunity and we know exactly what we'd be approving quite frankly. So, great. Thanks. >> Seeing no other uh request to speak from the commission, now would be a time to entertain a motion. I believe we will want to specify clearly what the modified condition is on that. Commissioner Valto, >> uh I'm ready to make a motion. I normally write down these modified conditions. I did not do that tonight. Does anybody have it or does anybody have it that wants to make a motion? >> Oh, please. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I think I'll give it. >> And one final opportunity. Any members of the commission final request to speak before a motion is made. Uh, Commissioner Ber, for the record, just quickly, is uh, Commissioner Williams, is your proposed motion that of staff's recommended uh, exhibit B or not? Just just >> staff's uh Commissioner Williams, for the record, staff's uh recondition of condition 23 uh was according to what I wrote down prior to the approval of final map, the applicant shall at a minimum provide for adequate pedestrian circulation including um but not limited to consistent with exhibit B. Am I correct? >> Okay. And that was the key word, consistent, I believe. >> Uh, consistent. Yes. >> Yeah. Not not including, just consistent with exhibit B. >> Okay. Consistent with >> So, we're striking everything from the first word, including consistent with exhibit B. That's the proposed staff modification. Is that correct? >> The rest is gone. >> Nathan Gilbert, I'll read it into the record. Modified condition of approval 23 would read, "Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall at a minimum provide for adequate pedestrian circulation consistent with exhibit B." >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Nate. >> Commissioner, >> you want to go? >> You got Commissioner Valto, would you like to proceed with a motion specifying that modified condition? >> Uh, yes. Give me one second. I'm just pulling up the I could just look for the term. Okay, let's see if I got this right. Okay. In the matter of case number LDC 25-000064 based upon compliance to the applicable findings. I move to approve the tenative map and major site plan review subject to conditions listed in the staff report with a modification to condition number 23 to read that prior to the approval of the final map the applicant shall at a minimum prov strike that modification to condition number 23 to read that prior to the approval of the final map the applicant shall provide for adequate pedestrian circulation consistent with exhibit B. Motion here with Sarah. I can second that. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C2. That was a lot. >> We will move to item D, business items. Mr. Do we have anything under this? >> Nothing this evening, Mr. Chair. Item E, Truckucky Meadows regional planning liaison report. We have again not had a meeting. We do have a meeting next week on Thursday. Oh, that is the uh fe February 26th on Thursday at 6 p.m. >> There was actually a discussion that we can report on by the regional governing board about the steering committee. >> Please proceed. Commissioner Roar Meyer. >> Yeah, Commissioner Roar Meyer. Um there was just on last week on the regional governing board had a discussion about the subcommittee that is the steering committee of the uh regional planning commission um which was working quarterly to meet that would be uh one delegate from Sparks, one from Reno and one from Wo County that would be the former chair, current chair and future chair. Um and they were pushing to have the discussion was pushing to have more regional coordination uh and look at ways to improve that. But the regional governing board um does not appreciate uh that effort and will not be proceeding with that. >> Truck Meadows Regional. Do we have any other items under the Truckucky Meadows regional planning liaison report? Seeing none, we will move to item F, future agenda items. Do we have anything from staff on this? >> Nothing from staff this evening. >> Anything from the commission? Seeing none, that concludes item F. Item G, public comment. Madame clerk, do we have any request to speak under this item? I do not have any requests to speak on this item online or in person. >> Thank you very much. Item H, adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Commissioner Williams. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Meeting adjourned.