Okay, this is the city of Reno Planning Commission meeting, Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025, 6 pm. Uh we will get begin with the pledge of allegiance. Please stand. I pledge allegiance for its >> one nation. >> Madame clerk, would you please conduct roll call? >> Jacob Williams >> here. >> Manny Bera >> here. >> Christina Delviar here. Tina Gonini here. Carrie Roier >> here. >> Alex Felto is absent. David Jockman >> here. >> You have a quorum. >> Item number three, public comment. Uh madame clerk, do do we have any request to speak form in chambers? >> I do not have any requests to speak forms. 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 agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you'll be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. We do not have anyone in Zoom with their hand raised. We did receive comment for this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. >> Do we have any requests to speak in chambers under this item? >> I do not. >> Moving on to number four, approval of the agenda 3rd September, 2025. Uh, can I get a motion to approve the agenda? >> Commissioner Bisera. So moved. >> Commissioner Williams, I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. Motion carries unanimously. Moving on to item number five, approval of the minutes. We have two uh meeting minutes to approve this week. Item number 5.1, planning commission meeting minutes from August 6, 20256 p.m. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes from that meeting? >> Commissioner Delvr, I would like to motion to approve those minutes from the August 6th meeting. Commissioner Williams, I'll second it. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I. >> Motion carries unanimously. Item number 5.2, uh, city Reno City Planning Commission meeting minutes, August 20th, 2025, 6 p.m. Can I get a motion to approve those minutes? >> Commissioner Williams, motion to approve. >> Commissioner Delvr, I second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. Motion carries unanimously. We will move on to item number six, staff announcements. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I do have some announcements, but before we get to those, uh, we have a very special guest in the audience tonight. Um, I think you remember at our last meeting, I announced that Michelle Fornier is retiring from the city after nearly 27 years. Um, 18 of which she has been helping with the planning commission. She's a fixture at these meetings. Um, so we want to congratulate her. Tomorrow is her last day at the city. And Michelle, would you like to come up and say a few words? >> Not used to being on this side. I'm used to being over there hiding behind the monitor. So, it's a little scary. Yeah. Oh three California management assistant with development services. Um, it's been a pleasure working with everybody here, past and present, planning commission. I It's been wonderful. I've made so many friends here and got to know so many wonderful people. I have my family here. Sorry, my dad, my husband. So, I'm going to miss all of you and I wish you all the best and thank you for everything. Mike, it's been a pleasure. I've known you for what, 20 years on the private sector and and here and I hope I wish you all the luck here at the city of Reno because it's a wonderful place to work. So, thank you. That's it. >> Please join me in giving her a round of applause. [Applause] >> Thank you, Michelle, for everything. [Applause] >> She is definitely going to be be missed around here for sure. So, um so moving on to our to our normal announcements. Uh there was no council action on any items that were reviewed by the planning commission at their last meeting. Um, on the September 10th council agenda, the ADU ordinance adoption will be on that agenda, as will consideration to object uh to the regional uh planning commission denial of Stonegate, including subsequent appeals. So, the council will vote if they wish to object to the regional planning commission denial of the Stonegate master plan amendment. Um, also on September 15th, uh, Tyler and Cali, their group is going to be putting on a boards and commissions training that will be held here in these chambers at 5:30 p.m. on the 15th of September. There's a link on the city calendar, if you go to the city website to the the general meeting calendar, there's a link to that meeting where if you wish to participate by Zoom, that's an option as well. So, that's all I have for announcements. Thank you very much. We will move on to item number 7.1. Uh these are under our public hearings. We will take these in order tonight. First item 7.1 staff report for possible action LDC26-00004 lipold remodel. Uh madame clerk, do we have any public comment under this item? >> We did not receive any public comment under this item. No. >> Okay. Uh we will move to disclosures from uh commissioners. >> Commissioner Delvr, I have read the material and that's it. >> Commissioner Gfantini, same. >> Go ahead. >> Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. >> Commissioner Williams, uh read the material. >> Commissioner Roar Meer, no disclosures. Don't we typically do public comment after the staff presentation? Yes. Are we looking at expediting this item? Is that why we move to public comment post? >> I I requested that information of the administrator regarding how the process should typically go for the um items and public comment. I was told the public comment typically goes first. >> This is uh Commissioner Bera. I'm gonna have to sit this one out. I grew up on that street of that this project sits on and know all the neighbors. And though I feel I can be objective, I just think it's best to sit it out. So, if Mike, you wouldn't mind just texting me, you know, when everything's said and done, uh, that would be great and I'll hop back on. >> Sure. >> Cool. Thanks. >> Have we uh So, I believe we've covered all disclosures. Uh, Commissioner Roer, you stated your disclosure. Uh, Commissioner Bisera is not going to be partaking in this vote. Uh, Commissioner Williams you >> Yeah. Uh, thanks, Chair. I'd like to make a motion to expedite uh, staff uh, this item 7.1 >> for this item. Would any commissioners like to uh, see the pre presentation given no public comment on this item? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion uh, an expedited motion regarding this agenda item. measurement. All right, Commissioner Williams, for the record, uh, make a motion to approve uh, LDC26-00004. >> Commissioner Delvr, I second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Hearing none. Uh, motion carries unanimously. We'll we will move on to item number 7.2. >> Mr. Chair, can we just make >> Yep. >> let Manny know that uh >> we will wait until we have Commissioner Bisera back in uh participation. All right, this is Commissioner Viser. I'm back. Thanks y'all. >> Very well. We we will move on to item number 7.2, staff report for possible action. Recommendation to city council, case number LDC26-00001, Orcrest Z uh drive zoning map amendment. Uh, madame clerk, do we have any public comment on this item? >> We did receive comment that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. I do not have any um request to speak form. So, we do not have anyone in the Zoom meeting with their hand raised to provide public comment. >> Okay, we will move forward to disclosures. Uh, starting with Commissioner Delvr. >> I'm familiar with the site and have read the material. >> Commissioner Gianiantini read the material. Commissioner Jockman, same. >> Uh, Commissioner Williams, same. >> Commissioner Rory, no disclosure. >> Commissioner Bisera, same as the prior commissioners. >> Okay. Seeing as we have uh I Cali, I believe you said we had public comment on this item. We did receive some via email that was uh entered into the public record and forwarded to the commission, but no comment for this particular item at this moment. >> Not for this particular item. Okay. >> Uh hearing none for this particular item. Would any commissioners like to request that we see the presentation for this item? Hearing none. would uh in in that case would we like to we would entertain an expedited motion from any commissioners if that is of interest. >> Commissioner, >> this is Commissioner Mer for the record. I I do I I guess we've had a few of these now the last few meetings and it just kind of seemed to segue and I'm all for you know being judicious with our time but may I ask when someone makes a motion to expedite or maybe in general we can come to a consensus or understanding like what are the the the uh measures by which we evaluate such a motion you know what what what kind of precipitates something if it's not obvious for us to move it along faster >> well I I think if it's not obvious the best thing to do is to request the presentation from staff. So, we can uh proceed with a presentation from staff. Miss Mcadin, can you please proceed? >> Sure, happy to. Um, Grace McAdin, senior management analyst for the record. Um, this is LDC2600001, Orcrest Drive zoning map amendment. Um the site is located kind of near PAR um or north of Par um just north of Orcrest Drive and they are requesting a zoning map amendment from large large lot residential 1acre to mixed employment. This is one of those that you guys have seen periodically throughout um since we've adopted our master plan. We've allowed people to do a zoning map amendment for free to come into conformance with the master plan. And so you've actually seen a couple within this immediate vicinity um coming from large lot residential to mixed employment to come in conformance with that master plan. And so again, this will bring the zoning from large lot residential to mixed employment. Mixed employment is that conforming zoning district within that master plan designation. The existing zoning is currently non-conforming. The big thing to keep in mind here that is that any future development will require the um approval of a major site plan review which this body will see again um being with being that it is residentially adjacent to the north which you can see on your screen right there. So any future development will have additional review and those residential agencies standards will apply. Here's the findings for a zoning map amendment. um staff was able to make these findings and the recommended motion is on your screen. >> Mr. Chair, if I could make one quick clarification, um it would require the approval of a site plan review for residential agency, which is an administrative review. Um however, depending on a use, it could trigger potentially a conditional use permit that would come back before this board. But regardless, there is um another level of review no matter what would be constructed on the site. >> Thank you very much. I believe we've already done disclosures. So, we will now move to questions from the commission. >> Uh, this is Commissioner Misera. Just uh I don't have any questions. I think Mike's clarification really helped out a lot. So, thank you, Mike. Hearing no questions from commissioners, uh we will now move into deliberations and we will entertain any motions if they are presented. >> Commissioner Ver, happy to make a motion if um Alli, if you don't mind putting up the motion on the screen uh or maybe on the Zoom screen if that's possible. >> Uh thank you so much. based upon complian Commissioner Bur for the record. Um, and let's see this one is in the matter of LDC26-00001 based upon compliance with the applicable findings. I move to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment and I can make all the findings. >> Commissioner Delvr, I second. >> We have a motion and a second. Uh, madame clerk, with a zoning map amendment, is a roll call vote required? >> Uh, no, it's a simple majority. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries unanimously. We will move on to item number 7.3. Item number 7.3, staff report for possible action, case number LDC25-000066, Stone Village fence. Madame clerk, do we have any public comment under this item? >> I do not have any request to speak forms. Um, we do not have anyone in the Zoom meeting with their hand raised. We did receive other correspondence that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh, we will move on to uh disclosures for this item, starting with Commissioner Delvr. >> No disclosures. Commissioner DelviR, no disclosures. >> Commissioner Gientini, no disclosures. >> Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. >> Commissioner Williams, same. >> Commissioner Murmire, no disclosures. >> Commissioner Vera, read and review the provided materials. Hearing as though there is no public comment under this item, Commissioner Visera, uh would any commissioners like to request that we see the presentation for this item? If not, we can move into an expedited uh motion for this as well. >> Commissioner Williams, I'd like to make a motion to expedite 7.3, please. >> Hearing hearing. There are no requests for uh presentation for this item. Uh yeah, we will now entertain a motion. >> Motion to expedite. Commissioner Williams, for the record. >> So, could we perhaps state out the full uh motion for that item? >> Sure. Um motion to expedite uh case number um LDC25-000066 Stone Village Fence. Commissioner Visera second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. We will move on to item number 7.4. Do >> you want to toss it? >> Item number 7.4 staff report for possible action. LDC26-00002 Mills family major site plan review. Uh, madame clerk, do we have any public have we received any public comment for this item? >> Anyone in Zoom? >> I I do not have any request to speak forms. We do not have anyone in Zoom with their hand raised. We did receive correspondence on this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. >> Understood. We will >> Mr. Chairman, before we uh Jasmine Ma for the record, city attorney, uh deputy city attorney, um the last motion was actually stated as a motion to expedite, not a motion to approve. So, could we redo that just to make the record clear? >> Certainly. So, moving back to item number 7.3, staff report for possible action, case number LDC25-000066. Regarding this item uh for which we have gone through public comment and disclosures uh the commission will now entertain a motion. >> We have the language on the screen if you'd like to read from it. >> Commissioner Williams in the matter of case of LDC25-00006 based upon compliance with the applicable findings. I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. >> Commissioner Gthiani. I second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Hi I. >> Um motion carries unanimously. We'll move on to item number 7.4. I'll repeat this for the record. Staff report for possible action. LDC26-0000002 Milan's family major site plan review. Uh madame clerk you stated that we have received some public comments under this item. We will now move forward with disclosures and then go in uh given the presence of public comment. We will move after disclosures into a presentation from staff. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, starting with you for disclosures. >> Uh, Commissioner Delvr, I have read and received the information and I am familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Giantini, read the materials and familiar with the site. >> Uh, Commissioner Jockman, phone call with the uh, applicant representative. >> Commissioner Williams, phone call with the applicant representative, familiar with the site and read the materials. Commissioner Roar Meer, no disclosures. >> Commissioner Bisera, read and review the materials and I'm familiar with the site. >> We will now proceed with a presentation from staff. Miss Picotti. >> Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, my name is Leah Picotti and I am an associate planner with the city of Reno Development Services. This evening I am presenting an application for a major site plan review for the Milmness family. Uh on the board here you can see the project location. This is 146.62 acre site comprised of three different parcels but the actual development area is only 5.6 acres. You might think this looks a little bit familiar and that's because you guys recently saw a portion of this site involved in the zoning map amendment for Ventana Point SPD to reszone that to um LLR1 and PGOS which I'll get into in just a minute here. So today's request is for a major site plan review and this is for fills greater than 10 ft, cuts greater than 20 feet, disturbance of a major drainage way and grading in the parks, greenways and open space zone. So here you can see the zoning districts are both large lot residential and parks, greenways and open space. The key issues that we analyzed in this were the overall site design, compatibility, and natural resource protection. Here you can kind of see an overlay of the proposed driveway and pad site in comparison to that zoning. So, as you can see there, that driveway does go through the parks greenways and open space, which is why that is added into the application because that does require a bit of grading. But the rest of that is all on that large lot residential 1acre density uh zone. So key issues overall site design compatibility and natural resource protection. I'll go through each one of those here. So as I already stated the background on this parcel is that it was Ventana Point SPD and I think you guys saw it on June 5th on August 13th just about a week ago couple weeks ago council approved the resoning. So that has officially changed from a specific plan district to that parks, greenways and open space and large lot residential. So regarding your overall site design, again this is 5.6 acres of actual development area. We have fills of up to 25.4t in height and cuts of up to 29 feet in 29.4t in height. You can see on the screen there the slope map. And I like to show this because it's colorcoded for where that is. So, as you can see there, the majority of the cuts and fills are up by that pad site with the red portion being the cuts and the blue portion being the fills. So, as you can see, there's a plan to sort of take fill from one side and cuts from the other and level that out. But if you move down a bit here to this area, that is that grading that's in the PGOS zone. And that is strictly to accommodate that 20 foot wide driveway. uh most of the cuts and fills in that area are around the five foot range. So, regarding the major drainage way, uh the applicant is proposing to install a 22 foot wide open bottom circular arch cover right about there. That's where that's located. And wing wall abutments located outside of the top bank. And here is their design for that actual area of um disturbance regarding that drainage way. And really overall when our staff looked at this, we determined that that um open bottom uh arch cover is probably the best thing to go across here. The only alternative to piping that major drainage way would be to somehow move that pad site to the other side which is much steeper which would result in much more grading and much more disturbance to that area. So that is why staff is supportive of piping that major drainage way in this particular instant. The major site plan review it uh findings are on the board. Um generally it's compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Um, it's consistent where applicable. That mass grading and major drainageway crossing provides access to the pad, but it also reduces the grading that could be required if they didn't do it in this way. Um, public services and facilities are available. I can let the applicant talk a little bit more about that, but being that this is just a grading application, we didn't get too into it. Project is reasonably compatible with the types of development. It's pretty much surrounded by residential uses and um vacant parks, greenways, and open space or WO County on the northern side. Uh staff does not find that it'll be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. We have imposed a condition of approval to limit the hours of construction, and we have required a buffer to reduce that headlight glare off of that driveway onto those adjacent residences as well. Recommended motion is on the board. If you have any questions, I'm available. And the applicant is also here with a presentation. Thank you. All right. Good evening everybody. My name is Eric Hasty. I'm with Wood Rogers. I'm representing the applicant. Um I'm going to try not to be too repetitive here. I'll just go over some of the things um that weren't touched on and and provide a little more detail. Um again, I think we have a pretty good idea of where this is located. Uh there's 5.6 acres of disturbed area. Um master plan and zoning were covered pretty well. Uh again, this is the triggers for the major site plan review. Uh each one of these triggers the major site plan review. So, we are triggering for them. Uh but this this does only uh go to grading of the actual driveway and the site um where the house is going to be located. Went over the where the cuts and fills are pretty well. Again, those are going to be located up by the house pad along the driveway. It's pretty minor uh grading in there. Um let me go back. I would like to say that uh the slopes along here are proposed at 2:1 and 3:1 slopes. uh we aren't proposing any walls along here. The whole idea of this is to try to have the uh the slopes that are created blend in with the natural surroundings. So these are going to be um proposed to have either rip wrap with some type of vegetation over it if that requires it. There will be a geotechnical report that will have to go in to the final grading plans to ensure what types of slope stabilization will be utilized on those 21 and 31 slopes. But the whole goal is to try to have these look as natural as possible uh by the end of of the life of the grading. Um again, there is a relocatable easement within the city of Reno property. You can see it outlined there in the green to give you an idea of where this is. So, this will be relocated once the grading goes in. Um I would like to make a correction there on the slide there. It says 26 foot wide paved road. That's actually 25 20 foot paved road and then there's going to be 3 ft of shoulder on each one of those sides. Um, as far as utilities go, um, electric will mo most likely be brought up through the the driveway itself. The house will is going to be proposed to be on sewer and or on septic as well as well. Um, they'll have to go through the state permitting process in order to get that approved. Um, again, this will only serve this private residence and so the amount of traffic that's going to be on here is going to be very minimal compared to what was previously approved. Although there was some concerns about headlights. Um, this slide here shows the comparison of the two uh roadway alignments. So the one in black is really the one that was approved previously through the tenative map process and the one in green is showing that um this is really trying to follow the Peine Pines Court. Um the the direction of the headlines will be uh a lot less um impactful to those neighbors along Peine uh Creek Road there. And again, 77 lots were approved at the last development. This one's only one home. So, the amount of trips that are going to be on here are going to be significantly reduced. There was uh concerns about some trees on site, too. There was a tree survey that was completed. Um there was identified 92 trees within 500 ft of the grading limits. There are many more trees, hundreds of trees to the north of that. We are only proposing to remove three of those with this grading uh exercise. Um a lot of that was based on the direction of the applicant who wanted to save as many trees as as they could. um that's one of the the features that they they really enjoy about this this um this site. And so protecting trees was was one of the priorities uh when we were looking at this. To give you a little bit of a better idea of what that crossing is going to look like, um you can see on the bottom left that picture on the bottom left there, even though this isn't that's much wider than than what we're proposing, um you can see that there's no bottom on that. It's just corrugated metal that's going to go over the top of that. So the bottom will remain natural and then we will have similar to the part picture on the right um walls that will go up and help minimize the grading that's within the the major the 15 ft of the 100-year mark. So on on the slide here you can see the blue line is the 100year mark. The red line is the 15 ft setback. So grading within that is considered grading within the major drainage way in the city of Reno. So you can see that it's it's going to be a lot more minimized in this area. Um so with that that that concludes my presentation. I would like to say that we did go to the uh W five NAB um last month. Um city of Reno recommends approval and I'm happy to answer answer any questions you guys may have. In addition, thank you. >> Okay, we have heard a presentation from staff and from the applicant representative. We will now move forward with uh questions from the commission. We have already done disclosures. >> Happy to kick things off uh if that's okay. >> Commissioner Visera, please proceed. >> Great. Thank you, Chair. Uh Commissioner Viser, for the record. I guess I'll start with the uh our staff. Um let's see. Is that Leah or? Hey Leah. >> Hi Commissioner Visera. >> Howdy. How are you? >> Good. How about you? >> Thank you. Uh Leah, since part of the site includes PGOS owned by the city, I believe that was mentioned, right? um how will the city's dual role or in this case maybe how has its dual role as a land owner and regulator uh been managed to avoid conflicts of interest since it's a co-licant I suppose >> although the city is a co-licant all we're doing is supporting the realignment of a driveway and minor grading in that PGOS to allow for the development of this residence on private property and being that there is an easement already located on that property. The staff does support that. >> Okay, great. Thank you. And and you feel like there was no issue with like conflicts of interest? >> No, I don't. >> Okay, cool. And then uh I'll just kind of go with one more, I guess, like I believe the sites within the high fire risk wildland urban interface, right? The WUI. >> Yes, that is correct. And then do do you and you know the rest of staff believe that the proposed vegetation management plan and the construction conditions are sufficient to mitigate the wildfire risk or are there areas the plan could still be improved before it's submitted? >> Um the wildfire mitigation plan will be submitted along with the building permit applications and will be reviewed by the fire department and I believe the state marshall as well. >> Okay, great. Okay. And then one last one for you as I was kind of listening to the presentation and reading through the material is were there any concerns raised about maintenance responsibility for the long private driveway especially snow removal or the emergency access reliability? >> Yes, it is uh included in the conditions of approval that um they maintain that access easement. I mean as I said that the easement itself is existing. It's just being relocated through this. So, all of the maintenance for that access easement was worked out years ago when the easement was originally created off of the city property. >> Great. Thanks, Leah. Um, and I have one for the applicant, but I'll go ahead and yield for a bit to allow others to ask some questions. >> Uh, Commissioner Delvr, I have questions. I have questions. Um, you talked about the, uh, I think this I think Eric brought this up, the the plan for the slope stabilization and things that would need to be done there. We did receive a lot of public comments, concern about how much is actually being taken out and moved. And then what is the during the construction process as well as long-term sort of what is that slope stabilization potentially look like? What are the impacts? And then how are we going to how is either the city or the the owners going to mitigate some of that if something happens? >> Yeah. Okay. Uh Eric Hasty for the record. Um so to answer your question I think um with the slope stabilization we are proposing 2:1 to 3:1 slopes at this time. um that will have to go through a much more thorough geotechnical investigation to determine which uh methods can be utilized whether that's rip wrap or just reve soils that are it's going to be based on the soils right so they have to do a little bit more additional uh analysis of that there are some locations around you know sparks in Reno where you can have even steeper slopes like a one and a half to one where you don't have any type of of any type of cover on there. But I don't think that's our intent and purposes are we want the the site to blend with the natural area. So that's going to be um in you know considered in that um but and then to have it be low maintenance as well. So that's kind of where the rip wrap and everything is a good um solution for that. But it's really going to be based on the geotechnical investigation that has to be done with the final grading plan. >> Got it. And is that does that come back before us or is that >> Sorry, Leah. >> Leah Picotti for the record. >> Thank you. >> So it does not come back before you. Um what'll happen is they'll go forward and they'll do all of those studies. They'll figure out what kind of slope stabilization they need to do. Uh, Reno Municipal Code has a a ton of requirements for slope stabilization. I can go through those if you want me to, but when they uh when they submit for their grading, their site improvement plans for their grading, they'll have to include all of that in it. And then our team will look at it from there, both planning and engineering. >> Got it. And I have I have one more question for you, Leah. Somebody else in the public comments talked about um the staging of the equipment and where that might be because they were concerned that it would be in their neighborhood. So, I'm not sure in terms of whether that is the slope construction or housing construction, but just in general like what would like is there permitted permitting needed for trucks that are going to be coming through there and staging areas and how does that potentially work? >> Um not necessarily. So, um I don't have a photo of it, but there is um an existing dirt road right as you come off right there. Okay. >> And uh I think that that could probably be used as a staging area, but as they move upward, that staging area like for the general pad will likely move forward. Yes, Erica is shaking his head. Yes, that's correct. Um otherwise, they could get an encroachment permit from public works. So they they could place something there for longer than 72 hours if that was required. >> Got it. Perfect. Thank you so much. >> Do we have any other questions from the commission? >> Commissioner, I do have uh one or two for the applicants. Uh representative, >> please proceed. Great. >> Thank you. Um just yeah just a couple like I think uh heard some things about the storm water and so forth. So I was just curious how uh you'll monitor and manage the storm water and erosion during construction and after buildout especially given that I believe no detention is being proposed. >> Yeah. So I mean uh during construction they will have to use best management practices. Those are typically um you know straw waddles and some types of silt fence. I'm not exactly sure what would be required but they will be required to um mitigate those the erosion of those slopes while they are actively grading. Um as far as any retention on site that again will be um be addressed during the final um final grading permit application. >> Okay great. Thank you. And then just uh one last one here. It's like um since the city is a co-licant, but this maybe goes to to both staff and applicant. Uh given that the project does impact PGOS land, what what is the long-term stewardship plan to ensure public trust is maintained in this open space protection area? >> Um Eric Casey, for the record, I can speak to that on on our end. Um, we have, this is unrelated to the major site plan review, but the applicant is interested in working with the city of Reno as well as the surrounding property owners in the HOA to determine the best methods um to help allow that uh to be to be open space. So to be used by pedestrians but prevent um you know off-road vehicles and everything as long as it's um we're we still have to maintain any easements that are that are within the property and any property owners that are to the north. Um but his interest is in working with the city as well as the surrounding neighbors to come up with a plan that works for everybody and allows uh access at least through the pedestrian side of of that property. >> Fantastic. Thanks, Eric. And just for clarification, is the what's the HOA? The adjacent one. Do you know? >> I am not exactly sure what the HOA there is. Somerset HOA, I believe, to the to the west and then the one that is um to the south. I I'm not I'm drawing a blank on the name there. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you, Eric. >> Canyon Pines. >> Canyon Pines. I'm being told >> those two. So, Somerset and Canyon Pine. Canyon Pines. Okay, thank you. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I'll ask one question of the applicant representative. So, regarding the 2:1 slope that you have on the in the fill condition on the south end of the pad there, you you stated that it would be subject to finalization of a geotech report. Um, do you anticipate that geotech report to yield a result that's different than what you're showing in the preliminary say plan? Meaning, would you have to go 3 to one or do you think you could be even more aggressive in that slope? >> Uh, I Eric Hasty for the record, I doubt that we could I mean, I'm I'm not an engineer or anything. So, if if there's going to be anything else, I don't think we would make it any steeper than that. We're again, the goal is to not have to do any walls or anything like that. So, um, if that needs to be smoothed out to allow for, um, slope stabilization, that will be more natural and more in line with a a 3 to1. I think we can we would prefer to do that in the future. >> Okay. Thank you. Nothing further. >> Do we have any other questions from the commission? Hearing nothing, we will now move into deliberations. Do you want we public comment? >> I believe we already asked for public comment on this item. >> I don't have any public comment, but if there's anyone in chambers who would like to make comment, now's the time. >> Do we have any requests to speak in chambers? Yes. Please uh please step forward, state your name for the record. You will have three minutes. And uh after completing that, if you could please fill out a request to speak form over there when you're done. Thank you. will do. Hi, my name is Sean Lemon for the record. I am a resident of Canyon Pines. Received my notice in the mail. Thank you for that. I just had a few questions and concerns about this proposed project. Um, and sorry, my phone is very small here. So, I know they addressed the removal of the trees in the area in that natural wildland that we have behind our uh HOA Canyon Pines. They said it's they were only removing three of the trees, but in this it didn't state. It said it's removing, you know, parts of the land. and the worry about removing the old growth trees that as an integral part of the visual beauty of the surrounding area. It's our concern that that would change the the visual appeal and the natural environment. Removing the trees or relocating them could potentially bring death to the trees and impact the wildlife of the surrounding area. you know, such as raptor birds like we typically see in our neighborhood are the eagles, the hawks, the owls. Um, and the with the extensive root system that these trees provide in the the grading, it helps prevent slides and hill slide erosion with that. And then the amount of grading needed to fulfill this project. It says on here that a request has been made with cuts greater than 20 ft in height. And as just a resident, not a planning or member of the construction community, that sounds pretty extensive to me and should be handled with with care to make sure that we maintain the integral structure of that public land area. And then with the proposal of additional homes in the area, I have a concern with the city of Reno fire department response time for the additional homes regarding, you know, how long will it take for them to get there? Is it adding more impact to our first responders in regards to wildfires or uh emergencies with residents of the area? Also with that, it was brought up just recently about how to maintain and ensure the care of the wildland is in place. They said that they'd be meeting meeting with the HOA and the surrounding areas and access to that area by the public in the community to make sure that it is accessible and not gated off with barb wire or fencing similar to the Somerset community that blocked off public paths with barb wire from that neighborhood of Canyon Pines. So, I don't want it to be taken away. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Please remember to uh complete the form. >> Appreciate it. >> Do we have any other requests to speak in chambers? >> And madam clerk, just doing a final double check. Do we have any request to speak online? >> I do not have anyone online with their hand raised. >> Okay. Uh seeing as though we have covered all public comment for this item. Uh do we have any resulting questions from the commission pertaining to this agenda item? Commissioner Delvier, I have another question if I may. This is for um actually I'm not sure if it's for Eric or or Leah, but um you talked about removing three trees, but it was just brought up in public comment that there might be moving of trees. Can you help me understand that? >> Yeah, I can. Uh Eric Hasty for the record. So the trees that we are looking at removing are over 9 DBH, right? So there there's a certain measurement um and so they were identified um on the tree survey that those would be too large to relocate and they most likely would not survive. So uh those will have to be removed as part of this. Um, I will say that one of the the goals for the the applicant and what he's looking forward to is protecting that tree grove up there. Um, like I said before, he really uh enjoys that aspect of it. And one of the goals of this, um, I mean, I think he sees more, he was saying he sees more than three trees being removed around Christmas time up there every year. And he's hoping that this will help prevent that in the future. and so allow more uh of these trees to actually grow to maturity and and to continue into the old growth area. So that we are removing three trees. They cannot be relocated because of the the size they are. >> Got it. Thank you, Eric. >> Uh Commissioner Jockman. So I'll ask one additional question there and I believe this is best answered by staff possibly Mr. So the uh the greatest cut uh depth that you're proposing there is 29 ft. Um I presume that as a part of a preliminary site plan, you do not take a look at the groundwater level at that level at that stage in review. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And as the applicant progresses, should the applicant progress forward with their proposed grading plan, will uh will will staff be taking a look at the uh potential disturbance to groundwater as as a part of that depth for the for the cut? >> Um thank you for the question, Leah Picotti, for the record. Uh planning does not take a look at that, but I know that engineering um looks at the hydrarology of the entire site and whatever is proposed. So I would assume that that groundwater would be looked at it >> as well as in the geotechnical report. So that that will be analyzed when they come in for their final permits. >> Okay. So you're telling me that the geotechnical engineer will have to sign off on the depth proposed and any potential disturbance to groundwater associated with that cut. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Nothing further. >> Do we have any other questions from the commission? Okay, hearing no more questions. Uh, Commissioner Roer, Commissioner Biser, any questions? If not, we will >> Perfect. If not, we then we will now move into deliberations. And if anyone would like to uh make a motion, the commission will be receptive to that. All right. Hearing no uh deliberation, Commissioner Williams, for the record, uh based on the compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the major site plan review subject to the conditions listed in the staff review for um LDC26-00002. And I can make all the findings. >> Commissioner Gantini, I second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed. Motion carries unanimously. We will now move on to item number eight. Item number eight, Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, could you please uh take us away for this item? >> I will be delighted to. We they we had a meeting uh and a lot of it had to do with conformance. So, I'll kind of walk through some of it. Um, this was to bring a lot of these things up to conformance for the 2024 adopted Truckucky Meadows Regional Plan. And so, the first one that was on there was the WO County School District facilities. So, their uh their plan was to come into conformance with that and we approved that. Uh then the next two, one was for the Truckucky I'm sorry, Reno Tahoe International Airport master plan to bring it into into conformance for the 2024 Truckucky Meadows regional plan as well as the Reno Steed airport. Um the Reno Stead airport was just a little bit different because they are doing a lot of potentially public um and uh buildings and things like that. And so anything that comes up after that will have to come through either potentially our committee or or regional again. Um but this particular thing was just to bring it to conformance for the regional plan. Um and then the final one actually there's two more. One was for um reimagine Reno, right? Reimagine Reno master plan again bringing it into conformance for the 2024 Truckucky Meadows regional plan as well as Sparks plan which is called a Sparks comprehensive plan. So all of this was just to bring it into conformance for the adopted plan um last year. The other item that was on there was a comprehensive land use designation um from R to commercial in Sparks and that was approved. And then as well there was another one about the Indigo Basin Solar Project that's out um out past um there's it's basically there's there's one to there's going to be one to the north there's one to the west now and this would be in that um area there and that was um the project of regional significance for again the Indigo Basin solar project was approved um and so they will move forward with that solar um generation facility and that was I believe that was it for that meeting. >> We also had two meetings this month >> and I don't do uh the the chair wants to report on stonegate but that was also um held this month. >> I believe we covered that item at the last uh planning commission meeting the the continued stonegate item. Is that what you're referring to, Commissioner Rormmy? Well, that it was decided upon after the continuence at the following meeting at the beginning of this August, >> right? So, at that at that uh meeting which was I believe on August 4th. So, we we covered that uh two weeks ago on September on on uh August 20th. That item was uh received a technical denial. I believe the motion was 54. As a result, that item will now go back to the city of Reno City Council where the city will make a determination on whether or not they would like to appeal that decision. Is that uh what you're referring, Commissioner Roar Meer? >> Yes. And I believe city council is going to be hearing that objection review on September 10th. >> Staff, uh could you please confirm the date upon which city council will will review that? >> Yes, that is correct. That was one of my announcements. um um under item number six, but yes, that will come back before the council on September 10th. I believe this concludes item number eight. We will now move on to item number nine, commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. Do we have any suggestions from the commission? Yes, Commissioner Bera. Just going to uh elevate some of the recommendations I've been working with Mike um on just just so it's on the record there and just for everyone's edification. I think we had talked about um a presentation on neighborhood plans and overlays at some point. a presentation on sustainability as it relates to implementing master plan goals, code requirements related to sustainability. Uh updated presentation on ethics for planning commissioners and others, but that might be the you know already kind of consolidated with the 915 presentation that was mentioned at the beginning of this meeting at the beginning of this meeting. If so, that's great. And just an update on 2025 legislative action bills uh that we asked for a little bit ago, too. And then a suggestion for outside presenters as we've done before be great to have like co-housing NB Energy Tamwa Washington County School District and RTC. >> Do we have any other suggestions for future agenda items from the commission? Hearing none, that item is not for possible action. So we will move on to item number 10, public comment. Madame Clerk, do we have any uh request to speak form under this item? >> I do not have any request to speak forms. >> Carrie, did you want to make public comment? >> Yes, I did. >> Okay, perfect. We don't have anyone in Zoom. So, go ahead. I will start your timer. >> Thank you. I just wanted to comment on the haste at which man much of this agenda has been treated. I think it's a disservice to the general public interest that we do not hear the full presentations and that we do not have a more meaningful discourse between the commission. Um, expedited processes were meant for very limited circumstances, certainly not for a third of the agenda. And so I want to go on record for my remaining two years on this commission. I will not be supporting a single expedited project. Madam clerk, do we have any other items under public comment? >> I do not have any additional public comment. >> Okay, we will move to item number 11, adjournment for possible action. Do we have a motion to adjurnn the meeting? >> Commissioner Giantini, motion to adjurnn. >> Commissioner Delvier, I second. >> Uh, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Meeting adjourned. Thanks everyone. Good night.