I'm ready all right thank you all for coming to the regular meeting of the Reno City Planning Commission today is Wednesday March 6 starting off at 6 PM first uh item on the agenda number one Pledge of Allegiance commissioner villain NOA would you lead the way please all right think you we'll move to item number two roll call Michelle please sorry just give me one second sure okay Harris Armstrong here Manny Basera here Arthur Munos is absent Carrie roer is absent Alex fto here Sylvia vinoa here JD dulich here we have a quorum great moving on to item number three public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment shall we have any requests to speak forms anybody on Zoom voicemails for general public comment let me read this into the record and then I will um get to that members of the public may call into the meeting to Prov public comment by using the zoom link provided on the agenda specifically https col links. reno.gov sl3 Capital T8 D capital d i n 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 3 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 agendized 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 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 disrupted behavior and you will asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues with that I did not receive any um correspondence no voicemails and no request to speak forms for this item thank you anybody in the chambers wish to speak in general public comment seeing none we will close item three and open item number four approval of minutes item 4.1 Reno City Planning Commission regular meeting February 7th 6: pm no issues yes please oh I I move to approve the meeting minutes okay we have a motion commissioner Armstrong I'll second all right we have a motion and a second all in favor I I great motion passes we'll close item number four move to item number five public hearings any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard we'll need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary alternatively you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of this meeting looks like we had a couple items post postponed or pulled any reason to bring those up right now uh no that's correct the first two items have been pulled they will be coming on future agendas and will be Ren noticed okay thank you we will go to item number 5.3 case number LDC 2438 2850 Cabo setback deviation and will we be getting a presentation from the applicant or okay we do have the applicant on zoom and we're bringing her over right now thank you Lori can you hear us yes can you hear me is she on mute Lori can you hear us yes can you hear me we can't hear you I think you might be on M mute oh try again is that better yes we can hear you do you have your presentation ready to go I do yes okay go ahead and bring it up and then um you'll be given 15 minutes to do your presentation and just state your name for the record please uh my name is Lori Ferris and I'm a residential designer working on this project on behalf of the homeowner at 2850 cabalo and we are requesting a major deviation which would allow us a 50% reduction in the rear setback the um here is a you can see my screen just making sure okay perfect um here is a vicinity map showing the uh property it's zoned sf8 single family residential and the parcel is .15 Acres the current setbacks are 20 foot front rear 20 and 5ot side uh we are requesting a change to the rear setback which would allow us to build up to the 10t line there would be no change to the front and no change to the side setbacks here are a few pictures of the existing residents and we would be just expanding basically where this concrete pad is located uh right here is the proposed site plan uh we are currently at 29.9% building coverage uh with the addition plus the existing shed we would be at 37 which is still below the 40% allowable building coverage uh the ex the exterior materials for the addition will match um the exist in structure and the proposed Edition would just be a single story and then here is a just an overall proposed floor plan depicting where we would be expanding the existing living room and um additionally we've received written approval from the three AB budding neighbors um and again we won't be increasing the impervious coverage as that part of the lot is already paved um and that is the end of my presentation thank you very much appreciate it thank you thank you all right well have a presentation from City staff Carter thank you Lori can you take your presentation down please okay thank you [Music] all right well good evening Commissioners Carter Williams associate planner for the record before you tonight is is a major deviation request for the rear yard setback um the property is located excuse me Carter you can use the keyboard it's not working the keyboard's not working there thank you the property is located uh excuse me east of cabalo Drive um the nearest intersection or major intersection for context is Miraloma drive and South McCarron Boulevard this specific request is R reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 ft to 10 ft property is located with the single family8 zoning district and has the master plan land use designation of single family neighborhood this uh application is supported by specific master plan policies that promote the uh reinvestment into Residential Properties to um support the maintenance of existing housing stock the specific improvements are shown on the screen it's a single story addition that would result in the rear yard setback to be uh 10 ft uh staff's review and Analysis was primarily on the compatibility with surrounding properties on the screen is the proposed addition in yellow the abing properties have existing improvements that encroach within that 20 foot rear yard setback already um there are two existing patio covers which are allowed by right generally to encroach um up to 10 feet from the rear property line um in any Zone um in addition the property to the South has an existing addition that was approved in 1988 through a variance so there's consistency in the I mean immediate immediately adjacent properties um in this case um from a compatibility standpoint um staff is recommending a condition that would limit the height to one story of the proposed Edition which is Inc consistent with what they're applying for on the screen are the recommended are the findings for a major Dev a um as the or the applicants representative noted um adjacent Property Owners to the site um provided letters of approval for the specific request and on the screen is the recommended motion I'm available for any questions thank you C appreciate it all right well now go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner VTO please uh commissioner velto familiar with the site commissioner Basera familiar with the site commissioner Armstrong I'm familiar with the site commissioner vill and WEA no disclosures commissioner dulich familiar with the site all right we will open it up to public comment I don't see any request of speak forms here but Michelle anybody on Zoom or voicemails I did not have anybody register for Zoom um to make public comment on this item no voicemails and no correspondence received okay anybody in the chambers tonight wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the Commissioners for questions of staff for the applicant if we don't have any questions open to discussion or a motion I can make a motion please do um first I just want to say um your house looks like it's going to be very nice with that new adjustment so um and thanks for investing in your community uh so a motion let's see what do we have here you got it right there if you want it oh thank you based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the major deviation subject to conditions listed in the staff report all right we have a motion commissioner Armstrong I'll second motion and a second any discussion seeing none all in favor I I I I and seeing none oppose motion passes fibo congratulations Lor good luck thank you you bet thanks all right closing item number three 5.3 moving to item 5.4 case number lc24 d36 525 East Plum Lane zone change looks like we might have a presentation from the applicant or nope yes okay uh all you know me I'm I'm I'm no longer with the city so I am now with the group and representing the today see how this will work bro hang on just one second you back so what we are looking at is zone change today uh over on Plum Street just to let you know uh yeah I've been uh probably away from the city about a month started my own company so you'll start to see me uh Fronton Center here more often hopefully all right news to me congrats thank you okay go ahead all right uh just to look at that location and context uh our site there is the red site in the middle the two arrows on both sides the arrow on the left is South Virginia Street Street a major arterial roadway the other is kitsy Street another major arterial way between that is Plum Street uh that is uh classified as a minor arterial roadway um as you can see there's a mix of uses um this is a really unique area we're seeing a lot of Redevelopment happening in this area uh the public Street Market which is just that whole Center has been redone we have red going on just the large open patch of uh Brown that you see to the bottom there out over by the kitki side side you're seeing uh the Redevelopment of that old shopping center into the auto auto center uh we have a new school going in just above the church there that's being built now and I think we're going to see some developments start to happen on the corner of kitsy and Plum there as that land looks like it's getting ready to develop uh the project site itself um a oh shoot I forgot the acreage but a small acreage parcel uh does have an existing building there are two current uh existing uses in that building uh looking at a a spa and a a tattoo shop you have as you can see you have apple parking in the back uh with the Ada parking another thing to note on that that uh um picture to the right is that solid wall that exists between the current po zoning and that residential zoning so that's reducing noise glare all of those other things that we'd see with these uses so looking on the left uh the zoning as you you can see is our site there is uh currently po what we are um proposing is to uh move that to GC and now if you look at this general area we really have a mix of zonings we have GC across the corner we have some multifam we have po as really a hodgepodge but I think as as was outlined in the staff report and Carter did a very good job of that is outlining that history of how that's you know as our City's grown that area has become more of a commercial area and with that uh Suburban mixed use master plan coming on it's really kind of ripe to uh start to intensify the use there and and intensify a long uh Virginia or a long Plum Lane looking at that master plan as I was saying Suburban mixed use um this is also in that master plan when that came it it was designated as an urban Corridor and those Urban Corridor we were really looking at a more intense mix of uses along that so that could be more intense housing that could be more intense commercial office office uh other uses like that so um with that the there's several uh master plan Poli policies that come with uh bringing this up and looking at that Redevelopment resilient economy uh well-managed growth this is already you know is an infill site and we' look that this could um continue uh to develop in a more intense way those vibrant neighborhoods and centers as we're seeing that residential in here that would use that and then safe healthy and inclus inclusive communities with that I'll end my presentation I'm available for questions also the applicants are or the applicants are here if you have any questions for them thank you thanks bro appreciate it Carter how you gonna follow that well I'll try I know you got Carter Williams assistant plan or sorry associate planner for the record all right so this presentation uh reviews staff's analysis of the zone change request for 520 25 East Plum Lane the property is located north of of Plum Lane um as Brooke noted the um area generally between Virginia Street and kitsy Lane specific request is from professional office to General commercial for the the whole property so the pro the master plan land use designation for the property is Suburban mixed use um according to the structure plan it is also located along an urban Corridor and there's a number of Master Plan policies that support the revitalization intensification the greater mix of um uses and and um opportunities for housing um for urban corridors specifically um there are also um Protections in the existing code for these adjacencies between commercial zones and single family residential um that that support both compatibility and an additional look into um what those impacts are and how they can be mitigated and I'll go into that in a minute so again the specific change is from po to General commercial um this change is conforming to the Suburban mixed use master plan and there are examples of General commercial in the the nearby um neighborhood the urban Corridor generally is multi multimodal or is intended to be multimodal in character with a mix of um residential commercial employment uses at a higher density than other places in the city and uh the current professional office zoning designation doesn't really support that that goal of the master plan so The General commercial does um progress that zoning scheme that would would better support the urban Corridor um policy in this area to go over the change in uses um professional office currently only allows for a fourplex to be established um and the GC zoning would allow for a greater density of multif family uses um a greater it Al also allow a greater mix of commercial uses but still provide opportunities for review through a conditional use permit and a minor conditional use permit for more impactful uses like bars um uh in any case any change of use or any addition to the building or any Redevelopment for that matter that could have an impact on the adjacent neighborhood to the north would have to go through a site plan review process for for a specific review um certain development standards are changed ing um the maximum height the number of stores and density are increasing I would note that the height specifically is capped at 355 ft unless they are able to provide a an additional step back um from the the residentially zone property so they could go up to 65 ft but as they go higher above 35 ft they have to bring the um the property more closer to Plum the specific property in question is very narrow um it's rather small um the ability to develop and utilize these uh the full capacity of the zoning district is is unlikely um but it does give a lot higher density which is supported by the master plan on the screen are the findings uh recommend or so the zoning map Amendment findings um generally staff's uh staff looked at the the master plan and it is conforming with the master plan and it progresses that zoning scheme um for the urban Corridor so we were able to meet all the findings and on the screen is the recommended motion thank you Carter appreciate it go to the commissioner for disclosures commissioner villain NOA if you may please I am familiar with the site commissioner Armstrong I'm familiar with the site commissioner berser familiar with the site commissioner VTO familiar with the site one more time with the mic on do it again green is go green is go commissioner VTO familiar with the S commissioner Dracula same disclosures all right we will open up to public comment Michelle I don't see any request to speak forms but Zoom voicemail I did not have any request to speak forms nobody no one registered for Zoom uh no voicemails and no correspondence received great anybody in the chambers wish to make a comment on this item seeing none we will close public comment and go to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or the applicant if you dare with the app I okay please do commiss AR showell uh this one's for staff um so in the staff report there's just a mention that the the re the proposed uh zoning does not trigger spot zoning and then there's a definition of spot zoning that comes from the Supreme Court of Nevada but I just wanted more color on spot zoning um generally like what's the implication of spot zoning how is it defined and um you know why doesn't this example meet the threshold for spot zoning just some more detail would be helpful absolutely Carter Williams associate planner do I have control of the slid still with the mouse yes use the arrow keys use the arrow keys on the keyboard and then use your Mouse as a pointer there's a hidden slide me let do this I had it prepared just in case this question came up excuse me so um so on the screen is the definition that was included in the staff report this is the test that was provided by the Supreme Court of in Nevada um so the specific um way that staff was able to meet uh or to to differentiate this from an example of spot zoning was because we have this clear Direction with the urban Corridor in um in the master plan um so spot zoning has to maint has to be def sorry when doing a zone change it has to be supported by a comprehensive zoning scheme so From staff's perspective when we first looked at it we um the gut reaction was to say this was spot zoning because it was the only thing on that that block face that is changing um but looking deeper into both the Supreme Court decision in in the' 60s and generally with um the definition of spot zoning across the country because this this is not a unique concept um it really tied it back to the master plan is it something that's progressing the the goals of the master plan um or is it just being used to get around something and in this case it's not this is something that we're looking to see this kinds of intensification on this quarter this just happens to be the first one on this block to do it okay that makes sense so like to make it maybe simpler is it safe to say that as long as not arbitrary and it's not just for the sake of doing it there's like no Nexus or fact pattern to support it that's that's how you can get around spot zoning effectively like it's just it's not an arbitrary change you can support the rationale for it correct and I think the the support needs to come from the master plan and the how we are implementing our zoning generally okay thank you commissioner Vala please a question for the applicant or the applicant rep hi congratulations on the Move thank you so the so I was reading through the staff report which you guys probably get a copy of that as well um it doesn't say at least I I didn't see it when I went through it it doesn't say that this is going to be used for housing but is that seemed to be where the purpose of the change well I multi family I would not anticipate it be multif family at this time I think as you see the acquisition of other properties or those changing or intensified zoning I think you'd see it continued as a commercial use at this point with the existing building and uses there but as that the uh properties around it you know came in for GC or look to intensify their zoning I think it opens opens up opportunities for uh potential multif family or other options in the future is there anything in mind right now for the site or is this just a no right now they're just to intensify that us to allow some additional uses that come with that zoning and then um to obviously it sort of starts to set the framework for or The Zing a long Plum there aren't that many differences I mean so the m so the multi the multif family uh there's some other uh some other uh retail commercial uses that are are slightly different that a tattoo shop is is allowed within The General commercial which isn't allowed within the public uh professional office isn't there a t I think there's a tattoo shop like correct there's a number of them kind of along that Corridor and funeral parlor no um just some other but one of the big things is just that uh bigger intensification for the future so it does allow some additional but nothing there's no nothing in mind right now there's nothing they would be it's the current building is what they're looking at okay I guess it wouldn't matter if we approved it it's not like we would be able to sway that but okay thank you you're welcome commissioner baser please sure just a clarifying question for Carter I believe based on the current questions and the responses received are we anticipating more of these just from just to bring it that Corridor up to conformance or to align with the vision of the master plan along that whole cor Corridor so it currently so the professional office is currently conforming with the Suburban mixed juuse master plan um so it would be property owner driven at this point I will say that the corridor along the South or the South side of the corridor is urban mixed juice and all of that there except for that MF 30 portion is non-conforming so we we could see or encourage those to come in I mean to bring those into conformance we may actually do it as a city um but the the northern portion could stay the same as it is got it thank you that's all Commissioners want to move into discussion or a motion uh commissioner berer happy to make a motion um please do based on compliance with the applicable findings I move to recommend the city council approve the zoning map oh am I looking at the right one yes approve the zoning map Amendment uh regarding case number ldc24370st [Music] thank you so I generally agree with what was said I think that it is going in that direction I don't live very far from there and it's pretty obvious um where that area is headed I point that out for just because I think otherwise it would be considered spot uh zoning um and so I just think it is important that we acknowledge that given kind of that area that I I would agree with what was prop what was stated from the applicant and from the staff so I will be approving or I will be voting in favor of this great any further discussion we have a motion and a second all in favor I I all right passes 5 congratulations all right we'll move on to item number 5.5 which is case number LDC 24003 Plum Lane properties looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicants representative perfect good evening Commissioners uh for the record Garrett Gordon today representing uh Tom Dolan and the Dolan family uh they currently own four Parcels along Plum so you just heard an item that was a little further west on Plum on the on the other side of the street these four particular Parcels are a little closer to kitki on the south side of the plum you see Little Flower School uh the the old Kos on the corner of ksky and Plum which turned the Redwood which is now been demoed so uh that area is going through some Redevelopment and our four Parcels are right across the street from the new Panasonic building which is currently uh on your way with Redevelopment so the zonings on the zoning on these four Parcels are currently professional office on three of them on the fourth is sf8 the idea here is move forward with uh some type of commercial development um currently the master plan designation is urban mixed use professional office and S of8 is non-conforming with Urban mixed use So currently the zoning is in non-conformance with the master plan so looking at looking at that we thought all right well moving forward with a commercial project you can see it's surrounded by General commercial let's move forward with GC just like you heard from the prior uh applicant however we're on the other side of the street have a different master plan than the application you just heard and GC is actually non-conforming as well so what does that leave us with so on the left hand side you can see uh the master plan Urban mixed use categories on the lower Le hand side what's conforming what's conforming with this new as of 2017 Urban mixed use master plan well you can see first of all sf8 and professional office or not which is why we're non-conforming uh mixed use urban is is so that's the application before you tonight is the trans go from professional office SFA to mixed juice Urban the other ones just for reference uh the next two are Midtown specific so wouldn't be applicable the next one's multif family which we're moving forward with a commercial project and you can see um there's commercial both on the East uh and professional office on the west so we think it's compatible and staff agrees we're not moving forward with any parks no public facilities no plan new development no specific specific plan so certainly it's a perfect uh option to go from Urban mixed use master plan to mixed use urban zoning same three words as compatible as you can possibly get um I would note and it was interesting to me is when we applied for this application our fees for the application were actually returned to us why because the city is encouraging applications like this to bring zoning that's currently non-conforming into compliance with the master plan so you can have cons conforming zoning and master plan districts throughout Reno again I covered this slide as far as compatibility um with the non-conforming versus conforming and I thought staff did a really great job um in their staff report kind of identifying some master plan goals and policies I point the two of them this is a great infill Redevelopment project you have a couple vacant Lots couple blighted structures uh it's ready for some Redevelopment and again 2.2 be it's an underutilized property uh we're trying to revitalize some vacant blighted underutilized structures into something special again I think Plum Lane is certainly going through a transformation from the airport down Virginia Street and the Dolan family would like to be a part of that transformation so with that I'm Happ to answer any questions and thank you for the time Mr chairman thank you and we'll get a presentation from staff hey Jeff hello Jeff Foster associate planner for the record it is has been a while since I've been before you good to see you all again um so I am not going to have a whole lot to say right now because not only did Mr Gordon talk about everything that was going to be in my presentation or a lot of it but uh Carter and Brooke spoke about similar things in the case before so there's not a lot left for me to say I'll keep it brief I know you've got a bigger item coming up maybe you can get out a little earlier tonight by keeping it brief so um just a few deta the site uh with those four Parcels is 88 acres um again it is a couple of vacant properties and a couple of single family homes no uses or buildings are proposed at this time uh giving the context of where we're at Mr Gordon indicated uh where we're at on Plum Lane near Little Flower and kitsy there uh and the old caros going back in time good good call there um uh key the key issue is is zoning compatibility um just to point out out what actually is around uh the four Parcels you have office buildings on the east west and North across Plum and then you have single family homes on the backside on the south there um again I can basically skip through most of this uh I didn't see that he uh Mr Gordon was going to indicate in his presentation that it they had originally applied for General commercial but he did cover that so nothing else to say there I would point out that um of the uh options that uh are are available under the urban mixed use uh zone or sorry Master Plan designation that mixed use urban is effectively the only one that the city would probably Zone this parcel for if we came through rezoning it in conformance with the master plan it's it's just the most logical Zone um all things considered so this would if we were the ones going coming through this is probably the zone that we would have proposed as well um again the policies and goals from the master plan that the project is lines up with nothing there um as far as the allowed uses um when I've come here with zone changes before um you know this is a a table that people have liked to to kind of see what is allowed under the new or the proposed zoning um pointing out that the uses that are highlighted in green are uses that um are subject to residential adjacency standards non-residential development adjacent to residential typically requires a site plan review in the mixed use urban Zone that is not the case so under the MU Zone if it were to be rezoned non-residential development would not have to go through a site plan review process okay I want to point that out however residential adjacency standards still apply so even though there's not a formal spr 30-day administrative review process sta in reviewing a building permit for a project cited on these Parcels or this parcel if it becomes merged into one would still look at all of the residential adjacency standards okay and all the uses that are highlighted in green are those types of uses that would incur residential adjacency the uses in yellow here are uses that would uh require either a minor conditional use permit a 30-day administrative staff review level discretionary permit uh or a conditional use permit a decision that would come before uh this body so um these higher level uses would require additional review Beyond just the residential adjacency considerations uh the development standards for the uh proposed mu Zone uh as was pointed out for the GC Zone on the previous application um these are more intense than the current uh Po and sf8 Zone zoning on those Parcels um however again there are prot protections from uh in the code uh dealing from the residential adjacency or tied to the residential adjacency and then you can also see that if by some chance a proposal came in for something taller than 85 ft it would require a full site plan review uh here are the recommended findings staff can make all of the recommended findings and here is the recommended motion I'm available for questions thank you appreciate it go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner velto please uh commissioner velto communicated with the applicants representative um and familiar with the site commissioner verer same disclosures as commissioner VTO commissioner Armstrong spoke with the applicants representative and I'm familiar with the site commissioner Villa um familiar with the site commissioner oh yeah that's it okay commissioner dracul familiar with the site and spoke with the applicants representative all right open it up to public comment on this item Michelle no one registered for Zoom I did not receive correspondence no voicemails and no request to speak forms for this item thank you anybody in the chambers wish to make public comment on this item seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or the applicant commissioner baser please yes thank you chair uh one for Jeff just a clarifying question really um everything seems to make sense but um an interesting thing that Mr Gordon mentioned was that his fees were returned because the city's encouraging these um I guess proposed changes or rezonings why why would the city just not initiate the the change to bring those Parcels up to conformance S Jeff Foster associate planner for the record as Carter uh Williams indicated during the previous presentation um there may be a time where the city comes through to to bring uh you go through a comprehensive process it wouldn't be done on a parcel you know kind of partial by parcel basis like that it would be you know looking at all non-conforming parcels and going through an exercise to establish what the most appropriate zoning would be and it would be done in kind of one Fell Swoop um I'm not sure what the appetite or when that's going to be happening I think it's an eventuality but I don't know exactly when that's kind of on the on the pocket okay uh but it would be done at some point in all likelihood great thank you Jeff that's all I had commissioner Billa please uh question first couple questions for staff just clarifying questions absolutely you mentioned um can you go back to the slide where you kind of highlight the standards I started to understand then I was kind of reading through this so sorry this one or this one yeah uh the previous slide yeah so you can you kind of touch on this again so I can understand you were saying that some because it's near residential right it's adjacent to residential South yeah can you just touch on that again so I can have a better understanding absolutely so so uses that um could potentially come in um for development on this site um obviously you've got all the different kind of categories that are come from our table of allowed uses uh the the the main categories being residential uh public Civic institutional commercial and Industrial so any of the ones in green um would because they're non-residential I obviously residential on the far left is residential but everything else in green is non-residential normally non-residential adjacent to the sf8 on to the South would require a site plan review process which is again that 30-day administrative staff level uh process okay because this is the proposed zone is mixed use urban there's a cavat in code that says basically developments in mixed use urban do not have to go through that site plan review process because the idea of mixed use urban is trying to bring in things that are what you would see in in a you know Urban zone so so there's kind of a there's a provision in code that that allows any of those uses in green to not have to go through that 30-day review process however a lot of what we would look at in that 30-day review process are residential adjacency standards and we would still look at the residential adjacency standards during the building permit process do you see what I'm saying there so we'd still effectively look at it just at a kind of a different time frame and the applicant mentioned that you uh I'm sorry the the umu that is and I haven't confirmed this I didn't double check so I'm relying on you it is uh it does adhere to the master plan it you know currently it's not in adherence but if we were to change it to umu it would be if we change mu mu mu is the Zone mu U is the master plan okay so the MU Zone would be in conformance with the master plan the current zoning designations Po and sf8 are not in in conformance with theu Y thank you for cl so the the MU zone is absolutely in conformance with the umu and it's likely the zone that the city would push for if we were doing a broad comprehensive to commissioner basser's question uh a comprehensive update to the non-conforming zoning districts okay great thank you seeing maybe no other questions happy to move into discussion or a motion I'm happy to make a motion chair please do uh in the matter of case number lc24 d33 Plum Lane properties based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to recommend the that city council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance we have a motion commissioner Vall second we have a motion and a second any discussion commiss please more commentary um I'm going to vote in favor of this but I just do do want to just highlight a couple things uh so this is kind of a unique site because it is adjacent to houses um residential which is just adjacent to that and we really don't know what's going to be built here um however we've talked about this in past meetings and in this meeting that whole area is changing and we know this and you know we're not going to stop it it's already in process so and I'm fine with that I think it's you know for the best um so I do want to just highlight this is not necessarily something if it was located in a different area of the city that I would be in favor of um given the area and the character of the community and I think it is an appropriate change so just want to put that on the record thank you thank you any further discussion I have a motion and a second all in favor I all right motion passes 5 congrats good luck yeah go all right we'll close item number 5.5 move to item 5.6 case number lc24 D31 Bell Vista Ranch Phase 2 PUD Amendment looks like we will get a presentation from the applicants representative thank you Mr chairman for the record Andy derling uh with wood Rogers representing the applicant tonight uh before you tonight is a plan unit development or PUD Amendment to the Bell Vista Ranch Phase 2 PUD um this PUD is about 77 Acres just over 77 Acres um located next to Bell Vista Ranch or Bell Vista PUD Phase 1 um logically and um was actually originally approved back in the early 2000s so this this PUD has been around for um going on around 20 years and um you know has had no development um and we'll explain kind of a little bit why um it's at the North Terminus of Rio Wrangler Parkway um and then is just to the south of um the east side of Talis Valley um which is U moving forward um as we speak with um future development some of the Patrick background as I mentioned this been 20 years kind of that that this has been sitting out there um when this was originally approved in the early 2000s right before the Great Recession um you know come 2007 a lot of this really stopped um and since then uh B Vista 1 has built out essentially it's a Toll Brothers community on the on the east side of Veterans Parkway there on the Bell Vista development and on the west side is referred to as cyan um Veterans Parkway has been completed since then um which is just to the north of this north of South mow Parkway there on the map um bellista Ranch phase one um included a lot of of the improvements that are associated with phase two um some of those include the steamboat Creek restoration so Steamboat Creek kind of used to take a little bit different route through bellista phase one there uh identified in the blue is the new alignment for that uh Corridor uh it's a you know kind of a Fen Corridor um that has you know Trails adjacent to it it's a nice amenity for the area um Wetlands protection was also part of that and the the steam booat Creek and and wetlands protection uh all were subject to an Army Corps 404 permit that was approved for both properties so on the Bell Vista Ranch Phase 2 side the the green wetlands area you see there was identified it's it's essentially tail water that comes out of the dman ranch Pond just to the south of us I guess I can point can't I no I can't just to the South there and um that tail water feeds these wetlands and then ultimately goes back into Steamboat Creek um so that Wetland area was identified in the 404 permit um as as a protection area needs to be fenced um to to protect it from large mammals uh there's also some flood um storage basins that were constructed one identified on the B Vesta Ranch Phase 2 site you can see there uh and then another one kind of on the on the lower um left corner U not identified right by the north Arrow there is another flood Basin that was constructed one other major um change that's happened in the last 20 years is this was adjacent to um the Old Sage Hill Gun Club um it's hard without pointing oh there I can uh so Sage Hill Gun Club was in this area um that's since closed uh the the the old Club burned down it's been in remediation for a number of years now uh and that is relevant because really the land use um plan for this area had um on the lower left corner is is the existing PUD village C is actually identified as commercial um so it was adjacent to the gun club you idea being you know didn't want residential next to an active Gun Club Villages A and B were residential fast forward in time the gun club's gone that commercial doesn't make a lot of sense there it's tucked kind of in the back of um of dman ranch area kind of Greater demman Ranch area not adjacent to you know kind of major cross streets it's it's sort of mid block on real wrangle so what we're doing is is kind of updating this uh this PUD to more modern standards more contemporary standards uh also moving some of those land uses around so essentially the upper uh right corner there is the new land plan uh we're bringing in kind of more common Gomen clature so we're we're a Suburban mixed use style zoning and a mixed neighborhood style zoning that Suburban mixed use we're moving the commercial from what was village C up to the corner of what is going to be South Meadows Parkway and uh Rio Wrangler with that change um we're reducing the non-residential commercial square footage quite a bit by about 30 a little over 30% um slight increase in the maximum number of residential units and then we're modifying kind of the standards as we go through that just to give you a comparison so on the left side of the table is the existing PUD uh on the right side is is the proposed um essentially there's no changes to the wetlands I know you received some public comment about you know changes to open space reductions in open space if you look at the table there um the public Park the flood storage area the wetlands uh all stay the same acreage so all of That Remains the Same uh there's no change to that essentially because it was part of a large FEMA um uh flood mapping uh you know the and the flood basins and things like that uh that overall Wetlands permit with the Army Corps of Engineers we're not changing that that you know pun intended water under the bridge um and so we're essentially just focusing on those areas that are outside of that shifting the land uses to make a lot more sense now um given the surrounding uh areas so I know that there was some you know kind of questions about intensifications things like that uh essentially we're we're leaving the intensity of this uh the same so if you look you know on the left hand side in the kind of peach color uh the existing PUD has a maximum density allowed of 30 dwellings per acre we still have 30 dwelling UNS per acre the difference being is that the acreages changed a little bit in that Swap and so that's that additional we go from 575 units to 609 units the nominal um nominal increase there the major change is with moving that commercial the um overall potential for uh commercial square footage commercial building area goes down significantly so from 100 little little over 178,000 Square fet down to just over 117,000 Square fet what that means um we did update our traffic study it means uh you know pretty significant reduction in potential traffic that would be generated from here uh again these are maximums um you know it by and large it will probably come in under that you know we have 30 dwelling 30 dwelling units per acre is allowed uh and a 0.25 F so essentially 25% coverage that's on the high side uh for you know commercial and and residential type uses so odds are you know we we'll see kind of less intense uh development ultimately uh at the same time we updated the design standards Landscaping uses uh to bring them kind of more you know modern to line up with the current code that's in place right now Street standards we made those consistent with Talis Valley and in the development and deani Ranch to the south of us we included uh the newly codified feral horse management standards that are in code uh requiring the fencing and things like that um so speaking of um the F feral horse mitigation efforts that would be included as part of this PUD uh are in accordance with RMC 180418 so that's that section of uh Reno Municipal Code that was uh included a couple years ago um for U for these areas specifically uh a couple of highlights for that uh that are that are included in that code there's a requirement ments to fence uh all of these areas prior to any construction so we have to submit a fence plan U prior to the approval of any building permit and that has to be approved prior to any commencement of construction whether that's grading or construction of uh any of of the Civil improvements roads water lines um sewer things like that um we have to maintain that permanent fencing then along the eastern boundary to to fence out those horses um and I would note that the existing 404 permit also requires additional fencing so we have that sort of blue fencing that you'll see around the wetlands there um that is essentially an open um split rail fence that you're kind of if you're familiar with the area on the other side of Steamboat Creek has a split rail fence the purpose of that is to avoid access by large mammals quote unquote so that would be horses people kids on bikes things like that that you know really those wetlands are sensitive environment we need to uh protect them they were meant to be protected uh and so we need to fence that so that you know permanently it keeps those large mammals out of there um some you know just information for you you know the City of Reno is actually going through a Virginia range fencing project right now uh it's in the design phase and I believe it's supposed to uh commence construction this summer um that project um has a couple of of specific projects that are associated um you know with this bellista Ranch Phase 2 these plans that you see on the on the on the uh page or from that that City of Reno consultant and I highlighted kind of where DVR2 or Bell bellista Ranch Phase 2 is uh the one that's highlighted that smaller uh kind of clouded area that's at the end of real Wrangler and they had a proposed cattle guard there and and gate that is kind of rendered moot um when when this um fencing would be um constructed along our boundary so that probably not going to be required and then the other one is actually to the north of us it's north of Talis um Valley East so kind of at the it' be at the future Northern Terminus of real Wrangler um up against some BLM land um so this is this is generally all BLM land um between Hidden Valley and and Veterans Parkway there and so there's some existing Ranch fencing out there and so what they're looking what the city's looking to do is relocate the fencing up to uh kind of up against uh Veterans Parkway on the east side of Veterans Parkway have it cross across the creek with some specialized flood fencing that can kind of let flood waters go through when when that when that flow is going and then tying into the fencing along the hillside what this does is it opens up a quite a bit of area adjacent to you know owned by public land uh adjacent to public land that would be an additional watering source for horses in this area um so that provides a permanent access to Steamboat Creek um for the horses to to be watering here's a just a zoomed in version of that um to show you kind of this this long stretch essentially from uh Alexander Lake Road where it goes under Veterans Parkway up you know kind of Midway to to Maroma there there would be uh all open for for the horses and constructed you know that area that's essentially City of Reno rideway uh and adjacent to BLM land so definitely a public uh aspect of that so just to review um kind of some highlights we're reducing the non-residential uh by about 34% increasing very nominally um the the uh residential units to 609 uh modernizing you know kind of you know bringing this uh PUD up to kind of modern standards uh with City City of Reno zoning code and adopting some of those um those things that have been adopted since then like the feral horse management uh aspects into this now pod so with that um that concludes my presentation and myself and gar Gordon are here to uh provide any uh answers to questions you may have thank you Edie we're going now get a presentation from staff hi Leah hello good evening chairman members of the commission Leah pakati with the city of of Reno development services this evening I am following up on Andy's presentation for the Bell Vista Ranch Phase 2 PUD Amendment some of this may be a repeat of what you've just heard but from staff's perspective these are the main reasons we supported this request this is a change all right so here you can see the location of the site it is approximately 7 7 Acres and again the request is to reduce that amount of non-residential from 178,000 Ft to 117,000 square ft increase the maximum dwelling units from 575 to 609 and to modify the allowed land use standards design standards development standards and Street design standards to understand where we are I think like Andy said you have to understand what was previously approved so the last approval of this PUD was in 2013 and the whole area looked very different at that time including the shooting range being there adjacent um and also the Gravel Pit up by vage J so to be clear about this what was previously approved were three villages Villages A and B were residential and village C was non-residential because of its proximity to that shooting range again we didn't want residences adjacent to a shooting range so the 2013 approval allowed for 178,000 square ft that was going to be installed there in village C and 5575 dwelling units which would be in Village a it's approximately 19 Acres so here the proposed amendment for 2024 um thank you what they're asking for here is to get rid of those three villages and split it into two two land use designations uh SMU and an MN the SMU would be mixed juice with 5 Acres dedicated to non-residential and the MN would be dedicated all to residential now with that mixed juice SMU potentially everything but 5 Acres of that could be developed residentially now looking at the land uses that we have there where the gun range was is now part of dman ranch it's mixed residential and up adjacent to SMU is part of Talis Valley and its single family so we're now looking at residential land uses adjacent to these uses and like Andy said moving the commercial area from down south which like you said would be just randomly along R Wrangler Parkway and up to the corner of um South Meadows Parkway there uh just provides better transportation all the way around so again this 2024 proposal would allow for 100x maximum of 117 Square ft of non-residential and 609 dwelling units just to be clear this is a 34% reduction of non-residential and an increase of 5.9% for residential oh I went too far so I know there was some concern from the public about these updates to the development standards but I just want to let everybody know that From staff's perspective the updates were very needed um as you all know Reno Municipal Code was updated and our new version was implemented as of 2021 a lot of the development standards that were in the the existing PUD handbook referenced old standards there were old uses there were old development standards and there were several items that really match what RMC is now what Reno municipal code is now so a lot of what was removed doesn't give the free rain it just defaults to Reno municipal code and just to be clear the underlying base districts here are NC neighborhood commercial for the SMU portion and multif family 30 units per dwelling acre for the MN portion so not much has changed there um height has been reduced from 45t to 35 ft the front setb was changed from 20 ft to 3 feet or 20 ft I'm pretty sure this Commission has seen several instances of tentative Maps lately where we're using that three-foot front setback uh for housing projects and things like that minimum lot size for the non-residential was removed the Florida area ratio was removed feral horse protection plan was updated for current compliance with Nevada revised statutes and Reno municipal code and the Landscaping the signage and some of the architectural design standards were removed like I said they just now default to Reno municipal code I just keep dropping things left and right so here you can see the recommended findings for a planed unit development I want to go through these one at a time because I think it's important for everybody to understand that when staff looked at this we were able to make all of these findings so is it consistent with the objectives of the of a PUD yes it is consistent it's a unique situation we've got Wetlands it's out on the out in uh a suburban area and it's consistent with the original objectives of the Pud they wanted a mixed juice development that had both residential and Commercial and to preserve those wetlands and create a 4.4 acre Park all consistent uh changes are in the public interest uh as we all know expanding expanding housing options is important uh only adding 34 units is 34 more units than what we had before but I do believe that that's in the public interest it's also consistent with use with the surrounding uses and the direction of the development with Talis Valley and dman Ranch a compatible ratio of residential to non-residential with the five acres of on-site commercial and the adjacent Talis Valley it will provide plenty of balance uh provides appropriate open space no change provides Public Services no change compatible with surrounding neighborhood From staff's perspective this amendment improves the compatibility we now will not have commercial in the middle of a residential neighborhood um address is a unique situation this amendment addresses the changes over the past 10 plus years 11 years the area has grown Reno has grown uses have changed and this amendment addresses those compatible with the master plan yes it actually improves the compatibility with the master plan I think overall here staff's perspect perspective is is that this is an update to an existing plan that was outdated and really it's a development that's now going to be based on the surrounding uses that it wouldn't be consistent with the surrounding uses prior I want to point out again that the wetlands are federally regulated they're not going to be affected the they are following Nevada revised statutes and Reno municipal code regarding the horses the commercial is being moved to the northern portion of the site because that's a major intersection and the previous area is now sounded surrounded by residential um by residential zoning the table of allowed uses now conforms to Reno Municipal Code which it didn't previously uh in addition to the commercial that's being offered here on site I do want to point out that Talis Valley is proposing uh 123 Acres of mixed juice commercial 500 ft from this development so any concerns about not being able to balance that commercial there is quite a bit of proposed commercial in this area also the overall density um is essentially being reduced because the previous approval allowed for 575 homes on 19 acres and that is exactly 30 dwelling units per acre this is actually changing that it allows 609 homes on 27 Acres so if they utilized all of that and they built all 609 homes on what on on the portion that they're allowed to build homes on and they maintain the 5 Acres of commercial that would bring it down to about 22 dwelling units per acre um development standards were removed they Now default to RMC plus again table of allowed uses now is uh conforms to Reno Municipal Code so when staff is looking at those uses we have something to compare those use standards too staff sees this not as only as appropriate but also as an improvement that concludes my presentation the recommended motion is on the board and I'm available for questions thank you thank you Lee appreciate it we'll now move to Commissioners for disclosures commissioner villan AA commissioner Villa familiar with the site read emails commissioner Armstrong I'm familiar with the site I read and received emails I spoke with the applicants representative and I spoke with councilwoman deer commissioner Basera same disclosures as commissioner Harris except I didn't speak with uh councilwoman dur uh commissioner VTO familiar with the site spoke with the applicants Representatives I and read and received emails commissioner Dracula same disclosures as commissioner belto all right close that up now move on to public comment I have two request to speak forms we will start here first up we have Tracy Wilson wishes to make a statement in neutral status good evening um my name is Tracy Wilson I'm a volunteer liaison with Wild Horse connection who holds the range management agreement with the Nevada Department of Agriculture for the horses on the Virginia range I'm also the Nevada state director for American Wild Horse conservation formerly campaign that runs the fertility control program trying to reduce the population of the horses on the Range I want to start by saying that we are doing our part as Reno continues to build into this area we've reduced the population of horses from Hidden Valley to Gea grade all along that City of Reno interface by 25% in 5 years so uh we're out there doing the job getting that population down in this area and what we're asking from developers as they come in are some mitigation efforts to help keep the horses safe while building happens and um you know as these things go on I have a couple concerns one is the way on page 33 the way it's written suggests that maintenance and monitoring of the fencing is only going to be done once permanent fencing is in I want to make sure that the applicant is clear that applies temporary fencing as well as well as the 48 hour repair um this area is very well known for vandalism of fencing that's why Talis fenced theirs and then they actually took their Gates off and left their fencing open because it was getting damaged and cut so much um the second thing on the core of engineer permit we have looked and looked and looked for it and have yet to be able to find it so we're we're still searching um the the one thing I do want to point out here is when we talk about uh mitigations and the application says that they've been working with local groups on mitigations there are no mitigations Happening Here what's happening is meeting the the Reno municipal code and we appreciate that um the mitigation that we asked for was that a temporary water source be put somewhere where the horses could continue to water until that City of Reno mitigation that you saw up there uh is open later in the summer and that probably won't happen till late in summer um in the meantime the horses are being cut off their primary water source uh I do understand that there are wetlands there nobody has seemed to care when teenagers have sunk their parents' SUVs to the axles in it or when the dirt bikers have torn it up but now it's crucial that it's fenced off immediately um when we asked for this we were accused of making demands and even the word extortion was used we cannot make demands all we can do is ask for cooperation to do the right thing um I am just going to you know remind people that when this particular project came for a PUD Amendment previously and never made it out of council because of watering issues for the horses I'm not here to oppose the project I agree with moving the commercial to where they want to move it I think that's all great all we're asking for is a temporary water source or that be left open until the permanent water opening happens thank you thank you than you as well all right next to speak is Audrey Keller wishing to make a statement in opposition Audrey feel free to come up and state your name and your clock will start thank you good evening Audrey Keller resident I do not work with Wild Horse connection but I was present at the NAB 2 meeting on February 20th where we heard the presentation um I would tell you that a couple of slides had been added to this presentation particularly when and because councilwoman dur um really um uh conveyed her concerns that the developer hadn't paid attention to the Wild Horse issue and that it was Prime watering area from Hidden Valley all the way to Geer grade and that all of a sudden well for tonight's effort um the slides have been added that they're taking care of the horses um I my objection is as a human as a person that might walk through that particular area the fencing to keep out humans and dogs is what was presented um the horses won't have an alternative to going home and getting water if as minute uh what we heard on the NAB was the minute you approve and vote Yes with the staff which I don't have any objection to the Home Building part the minute they approve you folks say Yes um they're going to start putting up that fencing without time for the horse folks to prepare and get um alternate watering plans and I don't think that's right and I don't think that's good practice best practice for this city so I just wanted to respectfully point that out and nothing against staff but um yes they may be following the law however um not allowing mammals to get water is not not good and it's not acceptable and I I hope we have a higher standard than that as humans um I also would suggest that other Fair cities um design build and maintain Wildlife corridors for that very purpose for their safe transitions from across roads for their safe transitions to foods and Waters and it is successful because the animals use those Wildlife corridors so um could the developer consider um making that happen possibly they're frowning right now sorry Andy um but I would ask you to vote no temporarily until they get a solution bring it back to you um I did ask uh uh councilwoman der she said that Council denied the project in 2018 specifically because they did not address the horse watering needs truly they did not address them and fencing them out is not addressing their needs thank you very much thank you as well Michelle do we have anybody on Zoom or voicemails no one on Zoom wishes to speak um we did receive correspondence that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and has been entered into the record uh no voicemails were received and I did not receive any more requests of speak forms okay thank you oh please got one more oh oh all right we got a couple more request to speak forms uh coming up now is Kelly Hansen did you wish to make a statement on public please come on up feel free to state your name and your clock will start and after that we'll be Kelly hayatt I believe hi I'm Kelly Hansen I used to um volunteer with Wild Horse connection I am very familiar with that whole development out there I have lived out there for almost 40 years and with the way they're trying to design the waterways and the fencing is not like approval for any type of wildlife it's just not for the horses is for all wildlife in the safety of the public and the animals or the wild life it needs to be redesigned where they have all access to the water at all times the temporary fencing does not does need to be maintained at all all times we do have issues with people running through fences cutting them we still have it everywhere and we are coming into summer and that's when all wildlife and the um feral horses need more water all done yeah okay thank you appreciate your time all right next up is Kelly hayatt we should make a statement in opposition thank you my my name is Kelly hayatt and I do work with the Wild Horse connection and I'm not necessarily in opposition to the development although progress bothers me this is the meadow it's beautiful it's been there for 20 years the developers have had this development for 20 years you've known about the water you need to make sure it's mitigated we are coming into summer it is going to be a problem Rio Wrangler will now be open if he puts his fence the way he wants to do it the horses cars everybody's just going to run right through it we've already been working this whole summer and fall to mitigate the deaths on the roads our volunteers are killing themselves to make the horses stay off the roads by walking them every day and every night we're now feeding legally thanks to the Department of Agriculture we need to have the fencing I'm happy thank God for the fencing the project that the city's working on is not going to be open before they close off the water they can't close off the water they can wait for that part of it they can just wait for that part the 5 Acres I'm watching the map the 5 Acres just leave the water open for now all the animals need to get there the trucks are going to be going there it's going to be a problem we don't need any more deaths and that will happen if they fence off the water thank you thank you as well Michelle anything else over there on your end all right no that's it okay anybody else in the chambers wish to speak on this item oh we have one more feel free to come on Upstate your name but please do fill out a request to speak for when you're done hello hello feel free to state your name and your clock will start uh my name is Tina bradick and thank you for listening to um the comments here some 12 years ago uh an advocate by the name of Carol AEL um who has since passed away told me that there was a provision in the master plan four wild horses and wildlife to reach the water at uh Steamboat Creek just north of South Meadows Parkway I told her that I was concerned that that that would get buried in some document which evidently it has councilwoman derer has a plan to start fencing this summer her plan allows Wildlife to reach water sources near miroma I would ask B a developer to please wait thank you thank you as well anybody else in the chambers I need you to fill out a request speak form please thank you for the reminder anybody else in the chambers wish to speak on this item you look like you want to Sir if you'd like to you may yeah just come on up my friend yep and feel free to state your name you'll have three minutes and then if you can just like Tina here fill out that form Michael markwart it's my name um I was just wondering if the the houses that are going to be built uh would be permissible to put troughs you know watering you know bowls for the horses as far as so you know if they do block off um you know fence it off and if when there is houses if the neighbors could uh you know fill out fill water you know containers to the that's pretty much what I was trying to say okay all right thank you sir we'll see if we can address it if you may please or can please fill out a give a like alleys from you know if not a if not chops I can't answer that but sure of I have to ask no worries all right anybody else in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and kick it to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant or staff commissioner Armstrong please thank you have a couple questions I'll start with staff uh thank you um so I heard it brought up a couple times that there is a period in time when a similar version of this project had gone before city council and it had been denied it sounds like the denial was based on maybe a non-conformance with Wildlife or a lack of Supply watering um so my questions are how did this factor into the existing staff report if it did um if it didn't maybe why not it just be helpful to get some color on that prior um hearing and then is there actually a legal Nexus requiring access to water and or providing temporary watering and maybe it's not like a cut and dry legal Nexus there policy Nexus there any kind of requirement um in our our kind of governing documents that would require that thank you commissioner Armstrong uh Leah pakati for the record to answer your first question uh I did go back and review the tapes from the city council when this was denied back in 2018 and it did seem like the horses were uh a major point of contention there was also some issues with Mercury potentially being on the site and if you go back and you watch those tapes I think part of that denial had to do with the potential for mercury and not having the test or the information at the time um in addition I think that while 2018 doesn't sound like a long time ago it's actually six years ago and we've seen quite a few changes in that area in the past six years including the um including Talis Valley being approved which is now adjacent and so I I think that some things have changed in the past six years in terms of the horses the applicant has simply brought the Pud into conformance with Reno municipal code and uh U Nevada rised statutes just to be clear we the the horse um the horse section in Reno Municipal Code sort of follows a lot of that Nevada revised statute but also I did want to address the temporary fencing issue because re Municipal Code has several issues regarding that fencing including that there has to be a phone number posted on the fence and it has to be fixed within 48 hours so I don't know if that's much help but it is some help um as for whether or not they can be watered I think I'm going to defer to the applicants in this case what was your for the record Garett Gordon on behalf of the applicant commissioner your question would you like me to answer so it was kind of specific to any legal Nexus requiring water or providing watering shall kind of just put this overhead up does that work yeah hang on just a second thanks Michelle okay for the record gar Gordon so thank you for the question commissioner so let me hit on the legal side and then being a good Community partner side so on the legal side you can see here in green the wetlands with or without this amendment those are fed regulated Wetlands specific in the mitigation plan to keep large manimals large mammals out why because they can bring in invasive species on their Hooves they can Stomp and these ferally re regulated Wetlands so whether or not you approve this amendment today horses should be staying out of the wetlands two from a legal perspective as far as watering horses the department of a and let me note on this letter it's from 2019 that prior denial that you heard about first of all was from a prior owner was a prior applicant group Mr derling and I W were not involved our client bought this property in 2020 this memo you can see was from 2019 the prior denial was in 2017 and in 2019 when this memo was published by the department of a it was in the contest of context of approving the day break now known as Talis Valley development because these same questions came up of why don't you you provide watering for the horses you can see in this mama from the apartment of a number one it's un unlawful to feed feral or astray horses other otherwise with a Cooperative agreement but two you can see here it says water rights can also pose an issue an applicant for a water permit to water livestock must be the owner of the livestock so it's clear from the Department of a that if you want to water horses which are considered livestock per the department of a one you have to have a permit from the water engineer two you have to have a water right for that permit and three you have to own the livestock so none of the above apply so even if this body conditioned us to water horses it would be an impossible condition to satisfy because it's illegal and furthermore you can see this Memo from the City of Reno back in 2019 that really uh summarizes the department of a position on water and it says Nevada law prohibits the state engineer from issuing any permit for watering unless a it's legally entitled to put the livestock on the land in question and B the folks who were trying to water the the the livestock or the horses own leas or otherwise legally possessed said livestock we don't own the horses we don't own any livestock we have no right to go get a permit to water so from a legal perspective one the horses shouldn't be in the wetlands in the first place and secondly we shouldn't be watering the horses on our land or on our land up the hill because we don't have a water permit in order to do so so that's a legal perspective The Good Neighbor side the good Community side we've said time and time again to the horse groups if they come to us with a legal right themselves to water horses then let's have a conversation about how we can be a good neighbor Sun Hills has 9,000 acres of land we could probably be a good neighbor but we've never been given any evidence that any group has a legal right to water the horses so it hasn't really triggered a conversation but I'll say in the record again we'll be a good Community partner if there's a legal right to water horses that a a organization has then let's see what we what we can do about it okay thank you I appreciate that color my actual my next questions were specifically related to the Wetland which you just walked through so um I am good okay commissioner VTO please I think my question is for for staff so I'm I'm trying to understand what exactly we're supposed to be looking at so my impression of the amendments to the handbook are that there are some amendments that make the handbook conform with current code because it was written before we had current code other than that the only change is to make it so the commercial area is moved and the residential area is moved on the parcel is is that the extent of what's being proposed commissioner volto Leah picotti for the record yes um with the exception of an extra 34 homes and a reduction of 60,000 square feet in commercial yes understood okay so under the existing PUD handbook is there anything being done outside of what you've just explained that um would affect any of the horses that are that are present in the area anything not that I know of I mean the amendments to this handbook are just bringing it into conformance with plan um I I I it's staff's opinion that the applicant has brought the Pud handbook into conformance with Reno Municipal Code which is what we wanted them to do and they've done that okay um so when we're evaluating that I understand we have to make the findings that are typical under statute um but are we supposed to reassess the entire project are we supposed to assess just what is being changed to see whether it's compatible would you have an opinion on that let me just put it this way if you deny the amendment the applicants can still build what's already approved a a denial of this doesn't preclude development it just precludes the amendments to the handbook thank you and and now I have some questions about the Army Corps of Engineers restrictions is it best to ask you that or should I ask the applicant those questions um I'm not very familiar with it uh I think either our engineering staff or um or the applicant try seems like G's able to answer these questions so I'm not super familiar with the Army cor Engineers limitations on Wetlands can you maybe explain that a little bit more sherff for the record uh grick Gordon thank you commissioner belto for the question so as Andy described this area not just our Wetlands but the entire develop of this area subject to an Army Corps 404 permit which takes years a lot of time money and consultants in order to have the federal government issued that permit you can you heard from Andy that the fact that the steamboat Creek was diverted to a brand new orientation obviously took a lot of review and process in order to approve that including in that context of the 404 permit they look at navigable Waters of the United States they look at wetlands and figure out what areas should be preserved the area here in green is subject to the 404 permit and it was designated as ferally regulated Wetlands so that comes with it a Bella Vista Ranch Wetland mitigation and monitoring plan and this is recorded on the property it runs with the land every owner is aware if they buy this land it comes with wetlands and there's some responsibilities with those Wetlands it includes mitigation measures in regards to goals and objectives Steamboat Creek restoration plan mitigation measures design implementation responsibilities monitoring performance standards reporting responsibilities long-term maintenance and management so as a property owner they have to comply with all these Provisions next door there's wetlands and there's um other storm water areas the the cyan excuse me the Bell Vista drainage District monitors those all the homeowners pay a fee and the assessment to the drainage district for them to maintain and monitor those areas we anticipate that the wet lens would also be turned over to that drainage district and the the fees used by our homeowners would go into a a pot in order to maintain and manage these wetlands in in a public fashion and so as current the property owner of and the legal owner of the wetlands we have to comply with this which certainly talks and and monitor and maintain which the federal government has the right to come in and and review and audit to make sure there is compliance in the past in other in other areas around here they've come in and said you're out of compliance not specifically the our Wetlands but that there is um some invasive species that have come in here you need to pull them out Etc I know sentex home and Scion had to do some mitigation but it's very regulated and and Sunny Hills as and the owner bista too as far as the property owner has to comply with all those requirements and so you want if I you ask question about thank you uh so in in so far as the 404 permit um what are the rules in the 404 permit that apply to like wild horses or large mammals is there anything that basically mandates what you do in relation to the wetlands yeah let me bear with me Mr chairman then me just pull so chapter for the record gar Gordon so chapter five of our monitoring plan talks about performance standards um restrictions and conditions and you know that includes um not allow further encroachment development uh into the mitigation or buffer area for 30 years the permit te and owners um must maintain these mitigation goals including controlling nuisance of large mammals in the area removal of exotic non-native pest plant species controlled burning consistent with compens compensatory mitigation goals so again it's wrapped in that these need to be protected and any you know activity from invasive plants or mammals going in there tromping around is not in the best interest of the wetlands and not in compliance with the monitoring plan so what what could the implication be if you were not in compliance with what's required under the 404 permit if non-compliance with 404 permit comes with I can say for a fact um fines could be issued but I also believe that there also could be criminal criminal implications as well if it was intentionally no different than say if you're killing an endangered species right there's some criminal penalties I believe ALS so if you go in there and and physically and intentionally upset federally regulated Wetlands I believe there's also a potential criminal penal these as well in terms of the actual development and building what are the are there so I you're going to build in this area I imagine you can't have wild horses walking around like a job site like is that something that you have to address or you would be addressing through fencing and how would you make sure those fences are secure do you want this yes thank you so for the record G Gordon thank you for that question commissioner so let me give you a little just let me just touch on a little history so when Talis Valley and Daybreak came forward with their huge development right there was no federal horse management standards in code at that point so Mr derling on behalf of his client with staff with planning Commissioners eventually with Council and the horse groups negotiated conditions in the Daybreak now Talis Valley PUD that dealt with fencing and horse mitigation next up was the Canyons that was further up the hill and again there was a discussion between the horse groups and the developer to negotiate conditions and pretty much what happened was they took the Daybreak conditions and and put them into the Canyon's handbook with some tweaks the Project Specific tweaks at that point the city council I believe it was the mayor said on the record I'm not comfortable moving forward with any other Virginia range entitlements until we codify these in code so everyone know knows the rules and we're not redrafting conditions every project so fast forward to today and Reno code 180418 you now have codified feral horse management and let me say if this amendment doesn't pass today we have to comply with this plan if the amendment passes today we have to comply with this plan nothing you're approving today is changing the fencing requirements and what does it say well it says for any new development that would be B Vista 2 A Fencing plan shall again contiguous horse fencing with no gaps through which horses may enter the property that supports what we've been saying Mr derling we're going to you know eventually fence off Bell Vista to what does it also say preven or fencing shall be maintained by the developer during construction you heard from um Tracy question about are we also going to maintain temporary fencing the answer is yes it would be temporary and permanent but let me say make this clear the fencing issue is not relevant to this amendment we have to fence and comply with this fencing today and if approved and we're still going through the entitlement process so as far as developing the am developing the project that you amend today is going to increase or slow down fencing is not relevant we're mixing apples and oranges a little bit here because the reason why we're talking about fencing I'd submit to you fencing shouldn't even be really being discussed today because Mr velto you pointed out we're not changing anything I'm not asking for a variance from code standards for for fencing we're going to comply with it but why is fencing relevant well you can see here everything in Gray was recently purchased by lenar lenar is going to build those homes they fully entitled and mapped to build those homes you have to have a road going over the creek lar is mobilizing um this month to build a build a bridge over the creek to extend South Meadows over the creek to uh put a water line down Rio Wrangler to Service uh uh Lenard's homes and eventually Bell Vista extend Rio Wrangler from three down to basically six all that construction activity is happening very soon has nothing to do with this amendment today and what require what are you required to do in a massive infrastructure project you're required to fence during construction per Reno code so we'll be fencing not only in compliance with Reno code but our insurance and lar Insurance they're building this requires you fence around the construction site you don't want kids falling into a waterline trench you don't want a horse falling into a waterline trench um also OSHA this issue came up recently with the city staff reviewed it and OSHA requirements are you need to fence around construction sites and finally Mr derling pointed out um the other day we have wetlands and bmp's best management practices again a law requires us to fence around the wetlands to make sure you know that there's no activity encroaching in the wetlands so we get in trouble with the the feds so again nothing you're doing today is impacting this big infrastructure project that's happening because of lenar our Amendment doesn't impact the fencing requirements or the watering requirements we're just simply moving around some uses that actually has a lower impact so we will continue on this infrastructure side to have conversations with the horse groups but as far as today it's moot it's not relevant to what you're um talking about today we're g to comply with code I can assure you that on the record thank you commissioner baser please sure um I think maybe this one for staff and um Mr Gordon uh my fellow commissioner has asked a lot of the questions I wanted to ask but um which led me to one uh because I empathize with everyone so far uh on all sides um that the applicant's put in a weird situation where they're having to uh defend uh something that's unfortunately going to be an experience for other applicants in the future if we don't get a hold of this and it's maybe an undue burden um so a couple questions what what is the Layman's kind of image or vision of from the staff's perspective Maybe maybe the city on how we coexist with horses uh I don't think they're going to go away they're part of the Nevada lure or culture um and if it's not on this matter it's going to be on another matter right um thank you commissioner Basera Leah pakati for the record I think when we're looking at the larger picture there's nothing about the feral horses in the master plan we have stuff about horseback riding we have stuff about horsse shoes but there's nothing that specifically addresses horses um so I and I think that the reason that we've done that is because really this is a matter of the state um the state is really who handles the wild horses Reno Municipal Code as Mr Gordon pointed out we added that section because that's what the mayor wanted us to do to alleviate these concerns in the future but here we are and all we're saying is they're complying with code and like he said whether gets approved or doesn't get approved still has to comply with code Talis Valley comes in and has to do infrastructure still complies with code so when we're talking about the bigger picture I don't think we necessarily have it written into our master plan um but I think that we do understand that the horses are are uh a a unique situation and we're trying to deal with them on a Case by case basis but really Nevada revised statutes State exactly what we can and can't do permits have to be acquired and I think all of our developers who are coming forward are doing exactly what the Nevada revised statutes require and what Reno Municipal Code requires Great thank you Leah just to followup um with a I I I personally don't believe applicants should be penalized in this way because of this situation but I do think that um the requests from some of the folks um are valid or or at least at least just um concerns and maybe I just my next question is more of a clarifying question because one of the questions was that between the start of construction um there was going to be a temporary fence and then a permanent fence and so forth um at some point will the horses not have access to water even you know for a week or two weeks or a month or will there always be some form of AIS with the proposed uh changes I'm not I'm not sure because I'm not looking at a timeline I'm looking at the amendments to the handbook but perhaps the applicant can answer that question Mr Gordon and and again my question I'll just rephrase and I'll preface it with that um I don't want it to be an undue burden uh I'm just trying to get clarification here here there was a comment made that horses would at some point not have access to water was my understanding U is that true thank you commissioner for the record gri Gordon so maybe we can pull up this slide so in regards to what you're reviewing and approving today doesn't impact your question one way correct or the other we're just complying with the fencing plan yes for code on the other topic of this large infrastructure project yes in the context of this infrastructure project if there are horses who are currently inappropriately or unlawfully in the wetlands that they would need to be removed out of this area and this area needs to be fenced for Lenard's construction project now the good news is if you you heard from Mr derling there was a presentation ironically the same night as our application that at the nav that and I don't think that presentation will come here I believe it goes right to council that there's a plan for a permanent water solution for the horses which is further up north the fence will be moved back there'll be a open access to the creek um hopefully starting this summer okay great thank you so much and I guess I'll end my round here if I may chair um based on Leah's response to me earlier that I do hope that we come up with a more strategic plan so we're not having to do this every time an applicant comes before us because currently what I've heard and what's before us I'm fine with right um but I do think we have a responsibility as people to take care of our wildlife and and find a more sustainable solution uh and not place that on the applicants every time they come before us commissioner Villa please thank you okay so I have I think the applicant would be best to answer this applicants rep or staff or just wait for the question oh I'm sorry okay uh let's see so I'm reading here it says that um where is it I just had it okay sorry um oh here it is okay since the street is planned uh for in the adjacent property Talis Valley the Bell Vista Master developer shall only be responsible for Half street improvements what does that mean and how does is Talis on board with that how is that going to work um for the record Andy derling yes so the Talis Valley handbook has um essentially they have a shared property line that that runs down the more or less the center line of of a portion of real Wrangler um so as Talis Valley builds they're they're coming in first um for Village 26 which is adjacent to Bell Vista that Suburban mixed juice area I guess I could bring up a picture yeah so um vill 26 is this um village of Talis um so they have a half of the street that they would be constructing so in a um kind of interim um case they they would be building a two-lane road when the SMU in this pink area of bista comes in they will finish the that um which you know includes some turn lanes and different things um there's you know sidewalk on one side and a multiuse path on the other so so each party kind of builds a half of the street but functionally um when Talis builds their portion it will be a functioning two-lane Street it just won't be the full buildout width if you will and so do you all work together on that or yes there are agreements back and forth between the two parties easements things like that okay and the so here it says major drainage way I have a couple questions about the major major drainage way uh it says the dra uh drainage and Grading uh for buen Vista 2 will address area will address the major drainage prior to development yes so what what does that mean the location or relocation of the drainage shall be determined through entire so it's not really saying anything so what is what yeah it's so it's it's actually this kind of hatched area here um just to the east of us is a detention Basin um and so that detention Basin collects water from more than 100 acres and this little drainage uh way is the outflow from that drainage basin and so because this is just it's a Nuance of code code requires or or specifies that uh major drainage ways are drainage ways that drain more than 100 acres in this case there's not actually a channel there right now it just sort of you know it it doesn't have a a really defined channel so as we do the grading and Define a channel it will be a major drainage way so at the time when we come in with development for this mixed neighborhood we would be addressing and and identifying where exactly that that major drainage ways is so it may not be there it be generally in that location um just hyd hydrologically it kind of has to be or hydraulically it has to be um in in again major drainage way quote unquote it's you know maybe a 30 foot wide you know um ditch it's not a it's kind of a Nuance of code because it's draining more than 100 acres and the applicant doesn't own the area in Gray just to I guess the right yes correct so how does that work if they you guys just have to repair the drainage way and who who pays for that is it the community or is is it the HOA that ultimately pays for it is it the developer that pays for it so whoever develops would have to construct that major drainage way as the outflow outflow so right now it just sort of um Nevada state law requires that you if you're collecting drainage you have to um disperse it to the property Downstream of you in like um uh like quantity and like style essentially I'm paraphrasing so essentially right now it just sort of you know over tops and Sheet flows uh onto the Bell Vista property that isn't conducive to the development right so we are going to channelize it and and and make it safer essentially to focus it um in that area um at that time and it dips into the wetlands it will have it will essentially have a culvert under the street and then we yes diffuse into the wetlands that's its that's its natural drainage course so essentially you've got um drainage coming down off of the hillsides ultimately it makes its way to Steamboat Creek right that's that's just sort of the general hydrology of the area and it says is their flood so there's a flood it's in a shaded X darker green or blue I'm trying oh the flood storage Basin yes so you got so what what stores is that just because it is in a flood zone it so this this flood Basin and then there's another one right here um we didn't label it so this was built those two were built as part of the steamboat ditch or Ste sorry Steamboat Creek uh realignment so if you were to look at these you know like this one in particular you can kind of see it a little bitter CU it's bigger and not color but there's a weir structure there so as the creek gets high enough it dumps water into those storage basins to you know during big events so that this storage Bas does the the same it's already constructed but where yeah where does the water come I mean it's because it's in a flood zone it's it's basically flood mitigation right or as part of Steamboat Creek so it's already been constructed okay yeah there's no additional flood storage or flood mitigation that would have to be constructed by Bell Vista Ranch 2 it's all been constructed with phase one so is there any concern that that because now we're moving the homes where the commercial was going to be so is there a concern and maybe staff could answer this is there a concern that that could overfill and cause flooding the houses would be Upstream they'd be sit above it oh okay so they're going to be yeah so this yeah this is higher than this flood Basin and then ultimately the cre Corridor is lower than that Mak sense okay all that water is running downhill to the creek sorry can I uh I had a couple more okay so I understand this was an approved site and we're just making some changes to the Pud the um so here it says developers will need to dedicate sufficient water rights are you guys getting your water rights from tomwa and if not where um yes they can come from from tomwa or a private Source um but essentially that that has to be proven out at the time of of building permit so when we submit our water projects to TLA for those you know if it's multif family if it's um single family commercial it doesn't matter when you were applying for that water permit to Tuma you have to provide um either proof of that you have the water rights or you purchase the water rights from Tuma a bank of water rights that's available so it's possible you guys may purchase from TLA but there's we don't know yet tyal that people purchase from tumai I mean they they have probably the largest bank of water rights in the region but there are some kind of you know odds and ends out there if you will of water rights but for purposes yes it's it's purchased from Tuma because that's I suspected it would be purchased from tomwa but does tmwa doesn't as far as you know no applications have been submitted for no because you have to have the actual project to know what the water demand is and things like that um if it you probably I mean this may be unlikely but where else would the water come from you'd all have to purchase it from someone else and would it be surface water would it be contaminated water Mercury you know because that there is risk of mercury like so yeah so I mean as as Leah mentioned you know one of the reasons this was denied before is because um there is a threat of mercury contamination in soils that are either flooded by or were irrigated by Steamboat Creek um so Steamboat Creek is a known um Source point source of mercury contamination it's coming out of washa Lake it's from all the mining activity historically in Nevada um and so it's known to happen in areas where where that Steamboat Creek specific water pools um and so on this property it wasn't irrigated with that water and and it was you know it's Upland from the creek so there wasn't flooding um or a significant flooding that would create that and so we did the testing we had the the Environmental Group go out and test it and it's not there's there's just there's not Mercury above the regulating levels well I guess my concern would be if you were to purchase water as unlikely as that would probably be would it be yeah no so TLA is providing water that's yeah they they control the the quality of the water um so it's sort of apples and oranges is what you're asking so a water right is I know T well Tomo if you're purchasing from Tumo you're going to get your water from Tumo but I'm saying in the unlikely scenario so no we're getting our one water you are okay now you're saying that you are okay well no no so if you buy water rights on the free market you dedicate those rights to T but they are providing you with the actual one it's not a oh I see I see what you're saying you're basically getting a credit let let me jump in here for Tan regardless is the water purveyor okay tomwa will will be the water provider for this project as Annie mentioned even if they buy water rights in the private Market they would be dedicated to tomwa tah serves the project so there there won't be any water provider other than T so we don't have to worry about them using groundwater or anything because they're just basically purchasing it and then it's being credited in T's it put into their system correct however tomwa provides the water they're providing water got it okay thank you so that clears up that and then let's see I had it so if someone else would like to go because I have a couple different notes Here does anyone else have questions I can doesn't look like it so far so I can I can buy her I can buy you some Fair time sure please uh Leah maybe one for you kind of more of a general question give uh the applicant time to breathe as well it was more General in reviewing uh public feedback uh that there was some confusion some difficulty in just uh understanding what the latest map was what the latest documents were is one staff aware of the difficulty with getting um uh clear communication out to to Citizens or residents and to you know is there a plan or response in place to try to lessen that burden and make it easier for folks to consume the most up-to-date information for these kind of requests thank you commissioner visar Leah picotti for the record um I understand that there was some confusion regarding this application and I think that there was misinformation because people didn't know where to find the correct information um so t typically when we receive an application we send it out on what's called a development review memo the first week that we get it and that goes out to all of the agencies and departments and um you know Wards and anybody who who might have an interest in it then sometime around the following week we send out courtesy notices to all Property Owners within 750 ft unless it's less than 35 properties in that case we continue to expand that range until we hit 35 so the minimum is every property owner within 750 ft gets that courtesy notice in the first week in this particular case uh Council medor asked that it be presented at her neighborhood Advisory Board even though it's actually in ward 3 so the applicant went to uh two neighborhood advisory boards both two and M3 and presented the application then courtes uh then hearing notices were sent out to that same list of people who received the original one it's posted on our website um I understand there was misinformation but I'm not in it doesn't happen all the time and if there's any plan to improve that um it would be Mr rley that could answer that question um one other thing to know too that the site is posted with I'm sure you've seen the big giant Yellow signs um so that that happens too um we have a process in place that's a standard process for all projects that come into the city so nobody's held to a different standard um in this case as Miss picotti noted this went to two separate nabs which under code would only require normally to go to w three but as a courtesy they they did go to w two um there's no ch plans to change that process that I'm aware of but it is a process that applies uniformally across the entire city okay great thank you commissioner villan NOA far thank you so I actually went through that and a lot of it touched on the same stuff and all of that my questions have been answered so thank you okay great you would we like to move into discussion commissioner VTO you're green over there yeah keep it on green [Music] um so I I I don't I see this as uh an amendment that's trying to make some conformance with a slight change to make the project make more sense it seems like the way that it is laid out currently especially the development that's happening around the area having commercial in the back portion of the lot doesn't make as much sense if we're actually trying to create Common Sense commercial in that area so I like what they're doing I think it's consistent with the master plan and consist with the goals in that area I I guess I I am sympathetic to the concerns about the wild horses but I don't know what the applicant is supposed to do it sounds like there's two reasons why they have to comply by put putting up fencing first is if you look at that map I don't know how they can build without fencing everything and fencing the wetlands anyway because if you where the development is and with what all the development around there you have to set up fences in order to be able to develop seems like that's already going to occur so even aside from this issue with the wetlands I still think that they probably have to fence it anyway so that they can build and they can already do that uh likewise if they have an ocean if they have issues with the wetlands and from what I've seen online and read about it seems like that's valid and everything they're saying seems to make sense that they have to put up fencing on the wetlands because they can't have large mammals there so I you know I'm in support of this project I think it makes the area better and it makes the project better um and I think we should really look at just what's being changed not try to rewrite the whole handbook or make a new issue out of something that uh they're already allowed to do thank you commissioner belto uh commissioner draulic I'm in agreement there I won't uh take that much further but I'm in agreement any other discussion commissioner villan NOA yeah I just want to add there's really not a whole lot we can do it's not a lot of changes so commissioner V sure uh similar place as my fellow Commissioners here too but I'll kind of uh reiterate what I mentioned earlier I don't think this is the last time we're going to see this and hear about it and it's not fair to both the applicant or for Advocates and the residents to have this kind of psychological weight of like what do I do I'm trying to do what is required of me so I do want to ask for us to think about how we can make a formal request with our fellow city council folks and other stakeholders to work with state agencies to make that there's a strategic plan in place um so everyone can just follow that and and we can coexist with uh horses uh and other wildlife and so forth and uh no one has to be burdened with uh these situations because I do think from what I've heard and what and who I've spoken with people do want to be good stewards and work with folks to find Solutions um but in this particular case um based on the findings uh I'm in support Great Looks like we've had a good discussion if not go ahead and move to a motion happy to happy to make please do all right bear with me uh or is it up on the screen oh there we go based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to recommend that city council approve the Pud Amendment subject to the condition list in the staff report report um in the case number of LDC 24-31 Bell Vista Ranch Phase 2 p Amendment all right we have a motion commissioner Vall second have a motion in a second any further discussion seeing n we'll go to a vote uh all in favor I I all right motion passes good luck with your project thank you all for coming in all right we close item 5.6 and move to item six trucky Meadows Regional planning liaison report commissioner Basera believe you filled in for the last one uh I did actually [Music] um can we can we pause for just a second please until the room clears out sorry to throw that on you I think we're quiet enough now go ahead I'm just having a hard time hearing so yeah that's why I asked if we could wait take your conversations outside please question V Sarah go ahead all right take two uh yeah quick update um nothing out of the ordinary uh it was a pretty quick meeting at the last Regional Planning Commission uh one of the things that did come before us was uh a matter that went through this body back in November I believe uh and that passed unanimously it was in regards to the uh project south of I80 yes uh south of I80 and there were no major concerns or questions um yeah nothing particular the ordinary to report on that all right thank you close item six item number seven staff announcements uh thank you Mr chair for the record Mike really planning manager I do have a few announcements tonight um under item 7.1 report on status of planning division projects um as I think you're all aware um our planning team is working on some cleanup and items to the municipal code and some minor amendments uh you will have a presentation kind of on the first round of those at your at your either your next meeting or your first meeting in April um we putting that together so look for that coming up um item 7.2 announcement of upcoming training opportunities I know we have some a couple new Commissioners so we will be having a training a planning commissioner training we'll have a series but the first one will be at your first meeting in April um and in the meantime if if you're so inclined if you go to the regional plannings website so tmp.gif of the trains that they have you can do them at your own pace um they're all related obviously to Nevada they there's some on Wildland Urban interface there's some on basic NADA planning law there's some on generalized um NRS statutes I'd encourage you if if you're so inclined to do that but we will be having a formal series of trainings coming up here in the next over the next several months um 7.3 um just to give you kind of some updates um commissioner Basera had requested kind of a summary of what the Planning Commission reviewed in 2023 and I think you probably all received the memo but just to give you kind of a a quick summary in 2023 the Planning Commission reviewed 74 cases total um that was down slightly from 87 in 2022 um essentially a 15% reduction um as I think you'll see if you look at the graphs conditional use permits are by far the majority of cases that come um but of course we do have Ted Maps you know even we had one variance for example major deviation so there there was a variety but conditional use permits were the bulk of the the cases reviewed um interestingly enough so far in 2024 we have not had a single tenative map brought to the plan commission I think that's probably easy to see why given current interest rates kind of slow in the housing market however I will tell you based on our prea application meetings that we hold with developers every Monday we are seeing some residential projects starting to trickle back in so I think you'll see some upcoming uh residential projects in the near future um if you have any specific questions on that or want kind of a more in-depth analysis or presentation we're happy to put that together but based on what commissioner Basera had requested that's that's what we provided so just let me know um finally um actions taken by the city council on previous projects uh the M Street master plan Amendment and zone change which was adjacent to the Grand Sierra that the Planning Commission voted to deny that will go to City Council next Wednesday March 13th to be heard at their regular meeting and then one other update the Reno a project which the commission approved at their last meeting has been appealed to city council by one of the residents of the platio and that will be heard on March 27th by the Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. and that's all the updates I have for tonight did you say by the Planning Commission or excuse me by the city counil the Planning Commission decision was was appealed to the city council when's our next Planning Commission meeting March 20th okay great what can um may we have the drafts of any changes for the you said there were going to be changes to the RMC to the Reno municipal code is that what you yes that'll come forward in the staff report can we get it in advance or there I there are still changes being made as we speak so I can ask that because we get the staff report like three days before a week or something like that it's really not a lot of time when you have a full-time job Angela fous is heading that that that effort along with Grace Madan and Lauren Knox so let me check with them and I'll see make sure that we can get out as far in advance as possible okay or at least some kind of I don't know maybe we can do like a zoom session or something like that yeah okay thank you did you have something on this item go ahead oh I just a follow-up question for Mike if I may um on first thank you so much for you and staff for providing that uh summary uh kind of a impact report um I guess I guess my question is we're still kind of early on we're in Q3 or almost start of Q Q2 this year and we recently recommended with uh Miss fous that a lot of things maybe should transition to more administrative decisions and so with that and if that moves forward and approved and all that what would the remainder of the Year tentatively look like for us uh in such a scenario you know it's it's hard to say just based there's a lot of factors that play into that for example the economy right now plays a lot into housing but generally speaking I think if if I was to provide you with numbers that the Planning Commission reviewed prior to to the adoption of the current code the update that went through in 2021 I think you would see that the the cases would be higher um a lot of the the processes that required what was known previously as a special use permit which is now a conditional use permit now are are administrative reviews such as a site plan review or minor conditional use permit so I think generally speaking the number of cases brought forward to the plan commission has gone down um however what I think you would see is less multif family for example because at your last meeting there was discussion of red of eliminating the conditional use permit requirement for example for multif family projects over 100 units so you wouldn't see those come forward tenative maps by state law anytime you create more than four Parcels has to go through the tenative map process so I don't see any reduction in the number of tenative maps that you will see moving forward um for residential projects so um you probably will see a little dip in terms of multif family use but for large scale puds intentive Maps I think you'll it'll essentially be the same okay thank you all right close item seven item eight commissioner suggestions for future agenda items for possible action seeing none we'll close item eight did you ask something yeah I just wanted to make maybe tie back to something that Mike recommended earlier too uh he said something about training and all of us kind of taking the initiative to go to the website um and perhaps um is is there other training that you might recommend as a body here or during a meeting or so obviously I I recommend the the the TM RPA trainings just because they're relevant to to our region um and they're free there are the trainings through American Planning Association Urban Land institute there's a variety of those and that's what we're looking at when we come back with our trainings is stuff that you can't easily access on your own um I think that's a great place to start but if you go to American Planning Association APA or Uli Urban Land Institute they do have trainings but as I as I mentioned there's a fee to to access those great thank you great close item nine eight and go to item nine public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment Melle no correspondence no voicemails and no request to speak forms were received and we don't have anybody on Zoom okay anybody in the chambers wish to speak on public comment seeing none we will close public comment and move to item 10 for adjournment so moved all right good night everybody good night