The weekend management Great job. We need something else. It's just the way All right. This is the city city of Reno Planning Commission meeting, Wednesday, October 15, 2025. The time is 6:02 p.m. We will get begin with the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Williams. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic >> for which it stands nation and justice for all. >> Item number two, roll call. Madame clerk >> chair Jockman >> here. >> Chair Williams >> here. >> Commissioner Bera >> here. >> Commissioner Delviar >> here. Commissioner Gonfontini >> here. >> Commissioner Roier >> here. >> Commissioner Belto >> here. >> We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. >> Okay. A few announcements uh before we begin. We will not be hearing item 8.1 on the Cax. Uh Jackie is uh sick tonight and so that will be at our next meeting. Is that correct? And uh we will take the public hearings beginning with item 7.4 then following with 712 and three. Uh we will now move on to item number three public comment. Madam clerk, >> it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you're an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer. If there is disruptive behavior, and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Um, I do not have any request to speak forms for this item. We did receive the correspondence that was entered into the public record and forwarded to the planning commission. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Do we have any request to speak under this item in public comment within chambers? And you said there was nothing online. >> We have no one online with their hand raised. >> Okay, we will move to item number four, approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting? >> Commissioner Williams. >> Commissioner Gy. >> We have a motion from Commissioner Williams, a second from Commissioner Visera. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. We'll move on to item number five, approval of the minutes for possible action. And these are the minutes from the city of Reno Planning Commission meeting September 17th, 2025. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes from that meeting? >> Commissioner Bisera. Motion to approve. >> Commissioner Gantini. Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. We will now move on to item number six, staff announcements. Mr. Yes, just a few staff announcements this evening. As you mentioned, um, city manager Jackie Bryant was scheduled to present on the seax under item 8.1. Unfortunately, she can't be here tonight, so we'll reschedule that for our next meeting on November 5th. Um, just to get you up to speed on some council actions that have occurred since our last meeting. The Mount Rose Junction specific plan district, that project went to council and was denied by the council. That project will not be moving forward. They did approve the Orcrest Orcrest Drive zoning mech zoning map amendment which this board recommended approval of. Um, also the ADU ordinance has been adopted and is now part of code. Um, and then lastly, the regional governing board overturned the regional planning commission denial of Stonegate. Those are my only announcements. >> Thank you for the update, Mr. We will now move on to item number seven, public hearings. Uh under this we will begin with item number 7.4. This is a staff report for possible action LDC case number LDC26-000010 boat sales conditional use permit. Uh madame clerk, do we have any requests for uh comment under this item? >> I do not have any request to speak forms. It doesn't look like we have anyone online with their hand raised. We did receive other correspondence that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. >> Thank you very much. Uh let's proceed with disclosures. Uh starting with uh Commissioner Gonfentini. >> Uh read and reviewed the materials. Spoke with the representative. >> Commissioner Jockman. Phone call with the applicant representative. Read and reviewed materials. >> Commissioner Williams read and reviewed materials and uh spoke with the applicant. Uh, Commissioner Delvier and familiar with the site. >> Could you please repeat that? That was unclear on our end. >> Sorry. Commissioner Delvr read and received the materials and am familiar with the site. >> Commissioner, >> Commissioner, sorry, Chair, apologies. >> Commissioner Valto, please. Uh, Commissioner Alto, same disclosures as Commissioner Commissioner Delvi. >> Commissioner Roireer, >> no disclosures. >> Commissioner Rera, >> same disclosures as Commissioner Deler. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, for this item, if uh if any commissioners would like to make a motion at this time, we can proceed with that. If any commissioners would like to request a presentation on this item, we can hear a presentation from staff. >> Yeah, I'm not supporting expedited projects. >> Okay. Uh staff presentation, please proceed. >> Good evening, chair, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Leah Picotti and I am an associate planner with the city of Reno Development Services. This evening I am presenting two different applications, but this is the first one. This is for the boat sales conditional use permit. So, the request before you tonight is on a site just shy of 15 acres. This is just north of the I80 and south um basically uh just west of the Cabelas out on I 80. That's probably the best way to describe it. And tonight's request is a conditional use permit to allow 12 or more automobiles, trucks, mobile homes, RVs, boats, or trailers to be stored on site for sale or rental, it is important to note that while this does allow for all of those different items, um the actual request before us today is for boat sales. Uh however, under code, it's listed all with all of those. So that's what the request is. The zoning district on this site is mixeduse suburban as is the site to the west. Um the site to the east is the Cabelas just there in the red. And you can see there is some single family uh or sorry large lot residential zoning um over to the west and some single family to the north. Key issues when we evaluated this request were compliance with Reno Municipal Code and compatibility with surrounding uses and developments. I point out those surrounding uses now because it's important to understand the background of this particular site. So in August 2021, a conditional use permit was issued for an industrial facility with residential adjacency. That conditional use permit also requested 24-hour operation and an alternative equivalent compliance for the transparency standards. The reason that I bring this up is that both this and the warehouse to the west were entitled under that 2021 conditional use permit. And then in September of 2025, a minor conditional use permit was issued for fewer than 12 boats for sale or rental on this property. And again, the reason I bring both of these up is that those conditions of approval mitigated any of the impact on residences in the area. So we did request that there would be a sound study done that was completed and as a result of the sound study the building design was modified to mitigate those impacts on the adjacent residential. All services to be performed indoor only. There was enhanced landscaping and screening um not only in the front there but also along the side adjacent to the residential. We um requested that they modify the sign placement under that conditional use permit and all lighting has to be dark sky compliant. So basically all of those conditions of approval follow through into this entitlement and are also applied here. So the conditional use permit findings are on the board. uh staff finds that it does meet all of the findings and is recommending approval of this application. Sorry, I feel like I'm losing my voice. And uh with that, the recommended motion is on the board and I am available for questions and uh Garrett Gordon is here to represent the applicant as well and also has a presentation. Thank you. >> Uh would the applicant like to make a presentation at this time? >> That's your decision, >> Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um, my presentation is very similar to staff, so I'm here for any questions. We'll forgo a presentation given pretty simple tonight. Thank you. We will now move on to questions from the commission. Commissioner Visera. >> Uh, great. Thank you so much. Um and thank you Leah first off and just staff for that clear and comprehensive report that I uh was good to read through it and it's really helpful to see how this request builds on the prior approvals and maintains the consistency with that Mortonson garrison plan with while transitioning this corridor kind of towards that uh mixed employment supporting uses and um definitely love the adherence to dark skies. That's always nice. Just a few questions I guess. Um, are there any anticipated changes in like the noise, traffic or lighting intensity compared to the prior industrial use? >> Thank you for your question. Um, Commissioner Bisara Leia Picotti, for the record, when this site was originally developed um, under that 2021 entitlement, they assumed that it would be warehousing and distribution, which is why it had that 24hour on there. So when staff looked at this particular request, this is much less intense than what the site was originally intended for. So staff found that all of the mitigation that was placed under the conditional use permit was adequate mitigation. Oh, >> okay. Okay, great. So that kind of builds on my my followup. Thanks, Leah. Given that condition number five requires, if I'm understanding it correctly, requires all washing and maintenance indoors, uh the staff anticipate any kind of storm water management implications or ongoing best management practices inspections? >> Um that that would all be looked at um under the engineering, but I believe that because the site is already developed, all of the BMPs are already in place for that. >> Fantastic. Thank you. That's all the questions I have for now. Do we have any other questions from commissioners? >> I believe I requested public comment previously. Uh Mr. Really, we've we've been through that, correct? >> Yes. Uh we don't have anyone um online with their hand raised and I still don't have any uh request forms. >> Very good. Uh if we have no other questions from the commission, we will now move on to deliberations and uh any motions may be entertained at this time. >> Uh Commissioner Williams, I'm ready for a motion. If you'll have one, >> please proceed. Uh, Commissioner Williams, for the record, in case number LDC26-000010, boat sales conditional use permit, based on the compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. >> Commissioner Gonantini. I second. >> We have a uh motion from Commissioner Williams and a second from Commissioner Gonantini. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed? I >> hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item 7.4. We will now move on to item number 7.1, staff report for possible action, LDC26-00008, High Sierra Gas. Uh for this item, we will begin with a presentation from staff. Mr. Foster, please proceed. >> Good evening, members of the planning commission. Jeff Foster, associate planner. For the record, uh, the first case I'm bringing you tonight is LDC 26-8, which is High Sierra Gas. Uh, it's been a while. I need to remember how to do this. Uh, okay. Site size is approximately 66.81 acres. Uh, it's a parcel located on the northwest corner of Lear Boulevard and Stead Boulevard. It's developed with a large industrial building that was built in 1987. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by industrial uses and undeveloped parcels that is zoned industrial and neighborhood commercial. There are residential uses adjacent to the parcel on the east side across two roads. The request before you is a conditional use permit to allow a propane storage and distribution facility that exceeds the 10,000lb threshold for propane per NRS chapter 459. Uh so the applicant leased a an approximately 14,000 square foot area in the north central portion of the parcel uh roughly in the area shown by the blue star uh but did not obtain the conditional use permit prior to establishing operations. The requirement for the cup was identified during the business license application process. Key issues that staff analyzed are compatibility with surrounding uses, site operations and agency coordination. The master plan land use uh is industrial as is the zoning district. Some background. Uh the 30,000galon storage tank holds approximately 24,000 gallons of liquid propane or approximately 100,000 lbs of propane when full at 80%. The site previously contained three 30,000galon tanks that the prior owner used for the backup power for a paper manufacturing facility on the parcel. And you can see those three 30,000galon tanks on the site here. Um those tanks were removed sometime between 2019 and 2020 2020 2022 21 based on aerial photography. The applicant purchased one uh the tanks and reinstalled one of them and about the same time acquired an existing propane distribution company and has been using the site for the storage and and propane delivery since October of 2021. Turning to compatibility, the general development pattern in the area is industrial with residential to the east. The three 30,000galon propane tanks were located in the same spot on this site for decades. The tank is approximately 350 ft from the closest industrial buildings to the north and the south. As you can see on the image here, the tank is about 840 ft away from the closest residential property line. and a portion of the eastern uh parcel perimeter has a large burm such that such that the tank is not visible from the residential area. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the use is generally compatible with the existing uses in the area. Turning to site operations, the site is uh not customerf facing uh does not have retail propane bottle filling that we might see at other places. The applicant simply keeps propane trucks, tools, parts, and customer tanks in the yard. The 30,000galon tank is filled with a large transport propane carrier. Uh the applicant then self-loads their propane trucks and delivers fuel to customers. Employees generally access the yard at about 7:00 a.m. and return by 3M Monday through Friday. Weekend deliveries are made when needed. The site has 247 security with three locked gates uh needed to access the facility. The gate that uh uh at the facility the fenced compound uh remains locked when personnel are not on site and staff has included that as condition number five. The other two gates are locked after normal business hours and the main gate off Lar Boulevard is under supervision. The location follows all NFPA58 code requirements which staff has uh included as condition number six. What is NFPA58? It's the industry benchmark for the safe uh liquid propane gas storage, handling, transportation, and use and mitigates risks and ensures safe installation to prevent failures, leaks, and tampering that could lead to fires and explosions. The tank, which sits in a safe and secure location exceeding minimum distance requirements, has necessary safety valves for piping and emergency shut off equipment, and the applicant has full approval from the Nevada LP gas board. So, um, for projects that involve hazardous materials, RMC requires that the administrator consult with the following agencies. the City of Reno Emergency Management Board, which does not actually exist, the Administrator of the Division of Environmental Protection of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the State Fire Marshall, the Administrator of the Division of Industrial Relations of the Department of Business and Industry, the commander of any military installation that that may be affected by the operation of the of the facility of which there um are no no such facilities, and the governing body of any other city or county that may be affected by the operation of the facility and again that is not applicable because the parcel is surrounded entirely by parcels within the city of Reno. So as far as the three agencies that I did need to coordinate with the department of conservation and natural resources said that propane has a unique exemption from CAP under applicability rules. Propane when used as a fuel or held for sale as a fuel at a retail facility need not be considered. In other words, it's exempt when determining whether at least a threshold quantity is present in a process. A retail facility means a facility at which more than 1/ half of the income is obtained from direct sales to end users. I confirmed with the applicant that they do meet the definition of a retail facility as 100% of their income is derived from direct sales to end users, namely businesses and residences. Uh, so I conf I provided that information to DCNR and they confirmed that they have no further issues. This Nevada State Fire Marshall said, "Our biggest concern with your 30,000galon propane tank is to be sure you have a hazardous materials permit. I have checked with our hazardous materials permit division and they confirmed that you have a current hazardous materials permit and therefore they have no additional issues. And the Department of Business and Industry said that they do not regulate liqufied propane storage tanks. So the coordination with all three agencies was completed and none of the agencies had any concerns that needed to be addressed. Here are the recommended conditional use permit findings. Staff can make all recommended findings. And here are additional findings that are required for projects that are involve hazardous materials. The planning commission shall consider and discuss as a part of the record the health and safety of the residents of the city and the safety and security of any military installation in the city. Again, staff believes that these findings can be uh made uh based on the information that I provided throughout this presentation. And here's the recommended motion. And you'll note that uh in this case you will be making a recommendation if you so choose to recommend that the council approve the conditional use permit as the planning commission is not the final body approving conditional use permits that involve hazardous materials. So with that that is my presentation. The applicant will not be making a presentation but is here to answer any questions that you may have. >> All right. Hearing that we will not have an applicant presentation, we will move on to disclosures starting with Commissioner Gonfentini. >> Read and reviewed all materials. >> Commissioner Jockman, same. >> Commissioner Williams, same. >> We will now go online to Commissioner Delvr and proceed in the same order as last time. >> Commissioner Delvier ran and received materials and are familiar with the site. Commissioner >> Valto, same disclosures. >> Commissioner Roar Meer, same. Commissioner Bisera, same disclosure as Commissioner Delvio. >> That concludes disclosures. Madame clerk, do we have any public comment under this item? >> Um, I do not have any request to speak forms. Do we have anyone on Zoom? No hands raised on Zoom. Um, I think we did receive other correspondence for this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers on this item? Hearing none, we will now move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Delvr. Thank you. Uh questions for Jeff, if you please. And I just kind of wanted a little bit of clarification. So, it sounds like while they sell the propane, the public doesn't physically go there and pick it up. They actually deliver all of it. Is that what I understood? >> Yes, your your understanding is correct. They they they are a retail facility in that they sell the the propane directly to end users but not at the site. They only deliver uh uh the propane to the end users offsite. >> Perfect. Thank you. You know, I mean, I'm also understanding that the uh facility the threshold the current threshold is£10,000 and it sounds like this is 100,000. So, it seems like a a lot a lot more. So, I'm just trying to and I understand that, you know, some of these tanks have been here before uh but it just seems like a large a large amount of excessive propane. So, the applicant may be able to speak to kind of industry standards and things regarding liquid propane. Um, but uh yes, it it does exceed the 10,000lb threshold and that's why the conditional use permit is required. >> Um, but uh anyway, I would defer to the applicant to address the >> question of the size of the tanks. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, for the record, Carl Windbigler, Hi, Sierra Gas. Um so uh to speak about the the size of the tank 30,000galon uh tank is a industry standard for storage. Um and that just basically allows us to get transport fuel uh so we can be competitive in the market. Um if you look at uh there's a wholesaler uh off of 395 and Golden Valley uh they have 700,000 pounds of propane at their location, but they're a wholesaler and they do rail. Uh so we only transport in. So, um, in our operations on California, we have 200,000 lbs of propane or two 30,000 gallon tanks. Um, so yeah, I I I agree that it seems like a lot. The 10,000 pound threshold would be like 4,000 lbs. That's or excuse me, 4,000 gallons. Um, that's what we have in a in a truck. Uh, so it's >> uh it's it it does seem like a lot. Each each gallon weighs about 4.2 pounds. So that's where you get that that number. But that that size tank is uh just uh standard for the industry. Uh that's pretty much any anyone that's in business has uh that has storage has multiple at least one or or multiple uh tanks of that size. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> That's how they >> Commissioner Visera. >> Great. Thank you. Uh yeah, just u couple questions here. First off, good report, Jeff. really appreciate it and your coordination with those multiple state agencies and the applicant. Uh thanks for your cooperation with the fire marshall and NEP to to kind of verify those current permits and the compliance under NFPA 58. Uh that's always really good to to to do. Um the written public comment that we received did raise some understandable concerns about that safety perception near homes and I think that's what Commissioner Delviart was probably getting at with her question. So I'll just kind of build upon that. Uh Jeff, I guess you are the applicant. Could uh you speak to how those concerns were addressed following the W4 NAB presentation and whether additional public outreach or info materials are planned for residents along what was it? Mount Babcock Street or Ste Boulevard? >> No. So, uh Jeff Foster, associate planner. So, no additional coordination has happened in terms of kind of public outreach or anything. I would I would point out a couple of things. One is, as I pointed out in the presentation, there used to be three 30,000galon propane storage tanks on this site in the exact same location that were that have been there for multiple decades. Um, and so this applicant is proposing one tank at this point in time um in the exact same location. Nothing has changed in terms of the proximity of the homes. um exact same conditions as have always existed and this tank is already existing and they've been operating there since 2021. So um staff did not feel that any additional kind of coordination was needed or or public outreach or anything of that nature. Um it I I obviously recognize that people are concerned about things that go boom, right? you know, um so but I I would also point out um you know, given those separation distances, approximately 840 feet uh to the residences, you've got the burm um the centralized location of this of the uh of the uh compound within the parcel, uh the three security gates, all of those things to me um mitigate any concerns um in terms of the the site being proximate to residential. Um, also Fire Marshall Beck is here. Um, and you may have some questions that uh that he might be able to chime in on. Um, but I know that uh he also kind of analyzed the safety of the site. Um, and in fact, it may be appropriate for for Fire Marshall Beck to to address the safety issue um with regard to uh um those types of public concerns. >> Sure. Thanks, Jeff. at the fire marsh marshall uh so wish is it' be great to hear >> for the record fire marshal John Beckino fire department um I work with Jeff quite a bit on this and and pretty much the the fire department's my position is the authority having jurisdiction concurs with all of these uh these cogent points that were brought up specifically was the site security there's 24-hour security and the public doesn't have direct access into the site And additionally, u NRS 278.147 allows for a conditional use permit to exceed the 10,000gallon uh threshold. And all things considered that the business has been operating for decades um with three times that amount, there was nothing. and and also speaking with with the uh the site owners and and managers that the the cost restraints as far as to to only have 10,000 gallons would make it cost prohibitive. The tank itself I think it was a4 million dollars as well. So all all things considered seemed like a very low u a low a low exposure and and the position is we feel pretty comfortable with it. >> Great. Thank you, Fire Marshall. It's really helpful. >> Any and did you have anything more for me? >> I do not this time. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Bisera. If you have no further questions at this time, we'll go back to Commissioner Delvr. >> I think I probably one or two more, but I I'll kind of take a step back and give others a little bit of space to ask questions, too. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, we'll come back to you, Commissioner Delvier. >> Thank you, Commissioner Delvr. So, one question I have um is if we approve this and then it goes to city council and they they approve the recommendation as well. Uh is there a the potential that they could put more tanks in like put the other two tanks back in or is this specific to just that one tank that exists there right now? So, uh, Jeff Foster, associate planner. For the record, the the request before you is to exceed the 10,000 pound threshold. Um, Mike, do you have any thoughts on I I honestly don't know if we would require an additional conditional use permit for additional tanks? >> I think most likely we would require an amendment to this permit just because condition number one is that the project be substantially compliant with the plans presented to presented. So, if we're tripling the size, for example, of what was there now, we would, I think, in true transparency, bring that back as an amendment to the conditional use permit. >> Thank you. >> That was Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Bisera, >> thank you. Uh, really a clarifying question I think might be for you, Jeff. Since the parcel does sit within that industrial node bordering multif family zoning, I think it's 14 and 30, right? Does uh do do you and the rest of staff anticipate additional buffer landscaping enhancements if a future development kind of intensifies on that east side of Ste Boulevard? >> I'm not sure I understood the question. So you you're saying if okay if there's additional uh residential development >> right >> in that area. >> Yeah. Like would you anticipate additional buffer landscaping needed or not? Not not necessarily. Well, no. I mean, if if the conditional use permit has already been Oh, you mean buffered landscaping on the other parcel that might be developed, not on this site. Is that what you're asking? >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, sure they could. Um, you know, I wouldn't think it would be necessary. Um, and are you speaking, Commissioner Ber, are you speaking about that neighborhood commercial zone parcel kind of the to the northeast? >> Yeah. Yeah, exactly. >> Okay. I mean certainly they could. Um I I didn't drive the site uh in person, but I drove it on Google Street View. Um and it's pretty that whole kind of northeastern corner of the subject parcel has a large BM separating it from the areas across the street across Mount Anderson and Mount Babcock or whatever the other street is. So I don't know that any additional screening in terms of kind of visual screening would be you know even recommended uh for for visual issues. Um >> but that would be up to the development of on on that parcel >> right separate. Okay I appreciate that Jeff and I had additional question about like a reporting trigger but I think Mike answered that before as far as additional tanks. So I'm good there. Uh and I appreciate you Jeff and the fire marshall for answering my questions. Of course. >> Do we have any other questions from members of the commission? >> Commissioner Williams. I do of the applicant please. >> For the record, Carl Windigler. Hi, Sierra Gas. >> Thanks, Carl. uh if a condition was uh proposed tonight that um asked uh Sierra Gas to provide like an annual compliance statement as far as this retail exemption um andor just some of the standards that you're obligated to like the NFPA 58 um and a record of any incidents like that year. Would would you object to that? No. Okay. >> Absolutely not. >> Yeah. I mean we we want full uh transparency and and our safety is our number one priority. >> Great. Yeah. But um no, absolutely not. Um and and to kind of speak about the other thing, if if we ever needed to if we if we currently have no future plans to add storage, but if we did, uh we will let you know um for sure and we will go through the the proper procedures and everything. But and as far as you know, if we needed to, you know, if there was another additional uh development going on or anything like that, well, we wouldn't be opposed to shielding the area or creating some sort of landscape. We would be definitely up for that. >> Okay. I appreciate that. I think with the comments about safety and the housing and all that stuff, it makes a lot of sense. It might be an extra layer of >> of of safety that an annual report be provided. So, I appreciate your willingness to >> Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And I understand the question, too. And you know, the 10 times the allowable limit does seem a a lot for sure. Um, but it's it's very benign. The liquid propane itself is not flammable. Um, and if we had some sort of cat catastrophe, um, there's there's so many safety features built into the piping and the tank is or excuse me, the Yeah, the tank is like a tank, if you will. They're >> they're very heavy duty. I mean, it's um they're an inch thick steel. Um, but yeah there's >> there's there's really >> if if there was a hole in the tank, it would vapor would come out and and that would be the end of it. >> Gotcha. >> You know, and then we would address that problem. But yeah, there's they're they're really safe. Yeah. And they last a long time. >> All right. Thanks for all that extra info. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Appreciate you. >> That's all I have. Commissioner Jock Jockman, I have a follow-up question to that. I and I guess I'll direct that at staff. If um there were to be a report issued annually, I guess one preference that I would have would be that if you staff determined something was not in conformance or was not to your satisfaction perhaps in coordination with the fire marshall, could you um would from first question, would you have the ability to revoke the CUP without coming back to this body? I think generally speaking, we would probably start it at suspending the business license if they were out of compliance. Um, I'm probably looking over at legal to see if if to revoke the CP. I don't think that could be done at an administrative level. >> That's correct. If it were, this is Jasmine um Ma for the record. If it were uh approved at this level, unless that was delegated, that power was delegated, it would have to come back to the planning commission. The So, I guess I'll come back to that. Then the second question I have would be, is there anything that staff would like to see specified in this annual report for review? >> For Jeff Foster, associate planner. I'm not sure other than just reviewing the report what we would necessarily be analyzing. Um, >> sure. >> The question for the applicant, do you is there an annual license that you have to obtain or something along those lines? >> You know, do you see what I'm getting? I don't know what we would be, you know, kind of checking what boxes we would be checking to make sure they were in compliance. Um, >> the place where my question is coming from is that I'm not an expert in propane storage. So, and I'm not sure any members of this commission are, but I can understand the concerns coming from Commissioner Williams. So, the um hearing hearing that I think that's okay that we don't specify that on the record. But I do think it would be good whatever condition it is that you're going to propose, Commissioner Williams, that that it's outlined as as far as the mechanism by which this city staff could implement such a suspension, whether it's the business license or something else so that it's clear how that process would proceed. And if if I can jump in, we have a couple checks and balances, so to speak, internally. I mean, code enforcement is another uh route that we go. If they're not compliant with their CV conditions, we can have our code enforcement division go out and and do inspections and, you know, provide citations. So, we have some systems of checks and balances between code enforcement and business license that if if the project is out of compliance, there's mechanisms to to basically stop that. Um, so Fire Marshall Beck just pointed out that as a part of the business the annual business license process that they would have to go through just for the city of Reno um that they uh that the fire that the fire department conducts an inspection um each year as a part of that process. So I mean it could be that we could rely upon that um you know because if we require an annual report there's there's planning staff has no kind of mechanism to um you know to you know check that if you will or or make sure that they're submitting it. We could put a reminder in our calendars or something like that. Do you see what I'm saying? There's that's not a typical type of of condition. Um it we I suppose we could include it in the business license record um and review that each year when the annual business license uh comes in and similarly as I pointed out the fire department would also be doing an inspection during that annual process. So maybe between the two of those that could suffice. Uh, so I guess final question for me that annual inspection by the fire department will occur annually regardless of what conditions we render. Is that correct? >> For the record, fire marshall John Beck Reno Fire Department. Yes. So every business license in the city of Reno is subject to a fire inspection as requirements for the business license uh renewal process and and we call them reoccurring reoccurring inspections. So every business um with obviously we have some staff constraints. Our goal is to get into every business every year um realistically um with the available staff that we have is is about once every three years is our average to capture all the businesses. But in the process of of of inspecting this site, we would we would we would look at that tank like we would at any any location throughout the city. If we find anything that's out of compliance, you know, like we when we inspect, for instance, um uh a fueling like a like a gas station, you know, we look at we look at all of the the all of the requirements that are that fall underneath that that business license. And if they're out of compliance, then we would we would we would write a notice of violation, they would have to comply with that. And if they continued out of compliance, then we would we it would escalate to the point where we would we would have to pull their business license. So we work closely with the business license department. So we do have checks and balances in place and we do have oversight. Um if they wanted to just dismiss these then we have we have me mechanisms to make sure that they they come into compliance or then their license is in jeopardy. Thank you. That was very helpful. Any other questions from the commission hearing? None. We will now move to deliberations. Uh seeing as though we have a possible modified motion that may be presented before this body, I uh kindly ask that we state that uh explicitly on the record at some point and if any modifications are made to what was previously discussed that we afford the applicant the opportunity to weigh in before we move on a motion. So deliberations. >> Sure. Commissioner Bisera, I I just wanted to say uh at face value, this appears to be a good logical reuse given the site's industrial zoning and the legacy propane infrastructure. And I appreciate the improved buffering uh from nearby homes. And I appreciate that this actually brings an existing operation to proper compliance. And also appreciate that the applicants willing to provide those periodic safety updates. Now, how a motion or reporting lever looks like, I'll kind of leave it to you all, but uh I think we're heading in the right direction here. >> Commissioner Gonfentini. >> Commissioner Gonfentini. I'm uh happy to hear all the neighborhood NAB comments have been addressed in terms of safety. I know that it's a hard concept to kind of wrap your head around if you don't have familiarity with propane. Um, all of us kind of got a little education tonight, but I'm happy and secure with uh the fire marshall's presentation and his information that uh it'll be handled yearly, I'm assuming, and uh everything will be handled properly. >> Uh I'm going chair. >> I'll say one thing. One thing, Commissioner Jockman. So I have a little bit of pause about adding that extra condition without a certain level of specificity particularly who would prepare the report, who's qualified to prepare that report. Um, at this moment I can see that turning into a bit of a bureaucratic process that I don't know if we have outlined it clearly enough to make that a condition of approval. That's not to say I'm double negative. I'm in support of such a condition of approval. I think we should add the specificity necessary to make it clear for the applicant as to how they would go about undertaking that process. Thanks. Uh you know with with the with the additional condition that I was kind of approving. So, in reading the staff report, I feel like that this was caught because something else wasn't caught during this process if I'm reading the staff report right there. Am am I wrong, Mike? So, so this came before and it it's not unusual that we we find the need for entitlements during business license review. Um, you know, I don't think this was a malicious I'm trying to get around the rules by any means. um you know the average person doesn't know what triggers certain entitlements. So this is one that did get caught in business license review. The applicant you know immediately submitted for a conditional use permit to to legalize everything. Um so you know I I wouldn't say it's something that it didn't get caught. It's the applicant simply didn't know. >> I appreciate that and I by no means I was suggesting that it was done in for any nefarious reason. I was just looking over the or thinking about a process step where if anything was to change in this conditional use permit. What what are our backs stops for that? If if if the sales deviate and it this facility doesn't fall under the retail use exemption anymore, what's the backs stop for that? Who's going to thing? And I I don't know if my intention on a on a additional condition was to create some sort of process. It was more of a statement from the business owner that he is still within this retail exemption based on his sales. Um that he hasn't had any major incidents and um and um one other thing I had in there. But if there's not a process or if that process is fulfilled um by the fire marshall and and the fire department, I'm more than happy with that. But I was just trying to provide an extra layer of um safety for those residents that express concern that we are creating back stops that if any of these conditional use permit terms were to change that somebody's paying attention. >> Right. So we will hold them we hold all projects that condition use they're held accountable to meet all the conditions that are included. So, if if retail sales, for example, is your primary concern, we can add clarifying language in that condition that, you know, no on-site retail sales will occur. Um, and then we would, you know, if if that started to happen, they would be out of compliance with their conditional use permit. Um, they would have to come back before this board to amend that conditional use permit if they wanted to continue that activity. Um, >> so, Commissioner Williams, if that's a thing that you're considering adding to as a condition, let's afford the applicant an opportunity to weigh in. So, specify that first. >> Yep. Yeah. And I I don't um Yeah, I don't want to deny him the opportunity to transition away from that exemption if if he's allowed to by law and something changes in his business model. It's more about um making sure that if it does that they come back um to somebody or some or the city and inform them that that has changed. Instead of two years down the road this becoming uh a different facility or selling uh retail or commercial and you know traffic has increased in that time and you know all the things that come along with a different change of selling. >> Yeah. Uh, for the record, Carl Winler, High Sierra Gas. Um, we would never do that. There's no way for us to create a make that a like a dispenser. So, like off of Lemon Drive, uh, there's a dispenser that that fills RV size bottles, grill bottles. We can only receive propane from a transport. And we were only set up to fill our trucks. The Bob a bobtail, which is the a propane delivery vehicle uh has a 30,000galon barrel on it. So we would never fill bottles there ever. It it your uh grill bottles four gallons. We would never >> okay >> do that. It it would never fit our business model and we would we would create a new location and and that's in our industry that's not very common. Unless you have a forward- facing customer location with a proper office and a dispenser tank, you would never fill a RV bottle off of a 30,000gallon tank. Not unless you were doing it in a bottle exchange business, which we we don't have any plans to do. If we had cylinder trucks and we had a proper dock and we had the proper dispensing equipment with scales, you would scale the bottle, fill it, load the truck, and go deliver it. But we would never this not what we do and that not not here. We never would. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification. And I I don't know if I should bring this up or not, but originally when this uh business was acquired, um a pock four years ago, there was another location off Virginia where the business license was. And so then they they got this spot, set the tank, and didn't realize what was, you know, we went through the state and the the uh LP gas board and all the other things we had to do. And then as Jess stated, in the process of just updating our address because we actually closed that lease off and moved out of there, that's when it it clicked off and then we immediately started the the conditional use process. >> Great. Thanks for the clarification. Uh for my part, I'm I I feel with um the checks that the fire marshals uh fire marshall has explained yearly compliance and based on uh the applicant statement, I'm uh fulfilled in my uh not needing an additional condition. So happy to make a motion if we need one. >> Do we have any other uh deliberations or questions from commissioners online? No, thank you. >> Hearing none, go ahead, Commissioner Bisera. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I was just going to say, uh, I'm happy to make a motion as well. Uh, if folks are ready. >> Commissioner Visera, please proceed. >> Yes. Um, uh, Kelly, may I get your help with a motion on the screen, please? Thank you so much. In the matter of case LDC26-00008, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to recommend that city council approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. And I can make all the findings and this is Manny Visera for the record. >> Commissioner Gonfentini second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. That concludes this item. We will now move on to item number 7.2, staff report for possible action, LDC26-000014. This is the United Rentals Lear Boulevard outdoor storage. We for this item we will begin with a staff presentation. >> Okay. Good evening again uh members of the planning commission. Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. The second case I'm bringing you tonight is LDC 26-14 which is the United Reynolds Lear Boulevard outdoor storage project. So the project site is about 8.45 acres uh just a stone throw away from the last one. um located on the north side of Lear Boulevard on the northeast corner of its intersection with production drive and production court. It is developed with two industrial buildings and a large outdoor storage and parking area. Uh the site is within the industrial zone which allows outdoor storage by right. A conditional use permit is required for storage over 10 ft in height with additional screening as determined appropriate. Additional language from uh RMC states that where permitted, outdoor storage shall be screened from adjacent roadways and parks and from residential zoned property within 750 ft of the use with 10 ft of landscaping and a solid fence up to 10 ft in height. The maximum height for all material storage is 10 ft except the decision-making body may approve the storage of equipment taller than 10 ft with additional screening as determined appropriate. Therefore, the request before you tonight is a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage of shipping containers up to a height of 50 feet and staff is limiting that per condition number five. The project uh sorry, the parcel is surrounded on all four sides by industrial uses and undeveloped parcels that are also zoned industrial. The key issues that staff analyzed are compatibility with surrounding uses and site layout and operations. The master plan land use uh is industrial and the zoning district is also industrial. Turning to compatibility, the general development pattern in the area is industrial with residential to the east. However, you should note that the closest residential parcels are over 2500 ft from the site. The hours of operation are between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. And the proposed site is for container storage only, not equipment rental operations that we normally associate with United Rentals. Therefore, staff uh feels that the uh exist sorry that the proposed use is generally compatible with the existing uses in the area. Um so on this graphic or sorry on this slide I wanted to show you that uh in the red shading in the picture on the left containers will be stored to the east side of the existing uh sorry the east side and behind the large industrial building which is located in located approximately 125 ft from and separated from Lar Boulevard by a parking lot and frontage landscaping and that's uh in that area that you can you with a little arrow down there. The containers along the property lines will be stacked no higher than 20 ft or two containers high. The stacking of containers four to five levels high would only occur toward the back of the site. Um, and staff has included that as condition number six. Stacking of containers two to three high on the east side of the building would be screened by a sec by a security fence with slats. And that's per condition number seven, as well as existing vegetation. Given that containers will largely not be visible from streets and the closest residential parcels are over three times further away than the 750 ft threshold for screening per code, uh staff believes that no additional screening is required. Um on the next three slides I will be showing you uh kind of a visual analysis that was prepared by the applicant to demonstrate uh the existing screening and why no additional screening should be required. This first uh view is a view looking north from the south side of Lar Boulevard. As you can see on the picture on the left, the top picture uh shows the view with the existing screening and vegetation in place. And if you kind of look closely, you can see some blue in between the trees at the north end of production court there. Um, so that's what those containers would look like, uh, that are approximately 650 ft from Lair Boulevard, uh, and stacked four to five levels high. As you can see, they would largely be buffered and screened by distance, the existing landscaping, and intervening buildings. On the picture on the bottom, you can see what those containers would look like were there no uh vegetation were all those trees to be removed. The second view is view looking north from production court. I would point out that the only traffic that would be traveling on production court would be visiting the two businesses. It's not just general traffic passing by. Um, as you can see, if you were to drive down there though, you would start to see those containers more clearly uh through the trees there in the picture on the top right. Um, and then again on the bottom picture, you can see what those containers would look like stacked four to five high at the back end of the site. Um, were all of the trees to be removed. And this final view is a view looking north from the southeast corner of the property. Uh as you can see the little red arrow there. Um the picture you can on the top you can see the existing screening vegetation and what the containers that would be stacked two to three high would look like. And then in the picture on the bottom you could see what they would look like without those trees that currently exist. Um turning to site operations. Uh access to the site is controlled by a security fence and a gate with security monitoring. Uh the Reno Fire Department, Fire Marshall Beck that was here earlier, commented on container stacking stability, combustibility of materials stored in the containers, and separation distances. Uh condition number nine requires that container stacking will only occur on concrete or asphalt, which uh addresses the stacking stability. The containers do not have internal contents when stored on the property and minimum width fire lanes will be preserved around all sides of the existing structures to ensure safe and efficient access by emergency vehicles. The containers are completely empty and locked to prevent unauthorized access and the applicant will maintain stringent and advanced health and safety measures for all operations including the means and methods for storing and stacking containers based on industry recognized requirements from ISO and the 2019 international code council G5 guideline for the safe use of interotal shipping containers and that uh is required by condition number eight. Here are the recommended findings for a conditional use permit. Staff again believes that all recommended findings can be made. And here's the recommended motion. I'm available for questions. The applicant also has a brief presentation uh to make. >> Good evening. Uh Andy Wright, for the record, uh Monoy CR, we have the uh we're the equitable owner of the property. With me tonight is Rob Heaton from United Reynolds. He's the general manager of manufacturing. Um Jeff or go ahead and use this for presentation. >> So okay. All right. Got it. Okay. So make sure I've got the right one. All right. So uh what I wanted to do was uh have Rob here in case there's any specific questions regarding the actual operations. Um as you saw in the conditional use application, we listed the use of the building which is a 39,000 foot and a 4200 foot buildings as an indoor manufacturing facility. The container storage is the key primary component of this facility. So having the ability to be able to store containers on the property at that height uh will allow efficient operation of this facility. But that's the main reason why brought Rob here in case there's any specific operation questions. Um I did want to go one more slide here. Sorry, I'm still on East Coast time. So I'm I'm a little sloggy here. So one of the things that Jeff did talk about here was and we touched on it briefly for uh truck operations. All those will go through production court. There's going to be nothing is going to go through the vehicle parking lot. they'll be dedicated to the employees, vendors that will be using that. So, there'll be no cross-pollination between um vehicle traffic and truck traffic, which I know was one of Jeff's concern there. And then also, he touched briefly as you can see the the green circles. I'm sorry, there's a lot of colors going on on the picture on the right, but on the green areas that are bubbled in there, those are the areas where we'll be tiering the containers for storage uh for those. Um and the last comment was regarding landscaping. I know in the staff's review uh they discussed about if any additional landscaping is warranted, we're happy to go through that process. If anything else is needed, we're very happy with the size of the vegetation that exists today and the health of it. Um but there's any others that staff and or the commission feels warranted where we're happy to to talk about that. Rob, you want to go? >> Rob Eaton, uh director of fabrication for United Reynolds for the record. Um speak to something specific or ask answer questions. >> Just answer questions. It's up to you. >> Yeah. So I I don't have anything further to add than they didn't already present but happy to answer any questions that you guys might have for the operations. >> Okay, that concludes the applicant presentation. We will now move on to disclosures from the commission starting with Commissioner Gonfentini. >> Uh read and review materials. >> Commissioner Jockman, same. >> Commissioner Williams, same. >> Uh we will proceed online in the same order. Commissioner Belvr received materials and am familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Belto, same disclosure. >> Sorry, Commissioner Rory. Notice >> Commissioner Bera, same disclosures as Commissioner Delvar. >> Okay, we will now move on to questions from members of the commission. Chair, just to butt in there. We don't have any public comment for this item. >> Uh, thank you. >> Yeah, you're welcome. >> My apologies. >> I will start with a question. This is Commissioner Jockan. So, the questions there largely pertain for me largely pertain to fire. Uh, on one of the Yeah, I believe it's this slide that's up on the screen currently. So the the first question is the red area is what is uh under this would be approved for storage and or stacking. Is that correct? >> Stacking as specifically empty containers. So the containers themselves is the asset. There won't be any contents within those containers. >> So and and I apologize. I I would like to direct this question at staff. Mr. Foster if you're available. >> The um so that area is partially asphalt and it is also partially dirt. Is that correct? >> Um it looks like there might be some dirt up in that uh what northwest corner. Other than that, >> right? >> Yeah. So in that area, are they allowed to stack under this approval or is it just store empty containers at a single level >> in the red area? >> In the portion of the red area that is not paved. >> Okay. So any storage and stacking of containers will require the area to be paved irregardless of one, two, three, four, or five levels. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that since I believe poor a portion of that outlined area is unpaved. That's that's what my concern is. >> If it's unpaved, it will need to be paved um prior to being able to stack the containers there to store and stack containers there. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> And that's I don't remember what condition I said that was, but it is one. >> I believe it was eight. >> Okay. >> Uh Commissioner Williams, I have a very generic one for the applicant. What is the need uh or want to stack them five tall? >> Uh Robert Heaton, director of fabrication, United Reynolds. So the primary purpose of this facility is to take a typical ISO shipping container and refurbish it into what we call a portable building for Nevada statutes. So if you go to any large job site or or uh uh city of Reno uses them, county uses them, COVID camp, um hope the the hope camp that you guys had. Uh basically it's a portable building or portable office. So the containers themselves is the asset that then needs to be manufactured. Containers are so large though they need to be brought in uh in waves uh and then stacked uh in quantity. They can't be brought in, you know, one at a time or 10 at a time even. will be brought in, you know, 50 at a time or so. So, the need to stack them is just for density just to just to be able to use that um comparable if you were to take a a a mobile modular unit, an office trailer or something like that with a chassis uh or even a van trailer on a on a typical truck and and uh trailer, it takes so much storage that you would need a a a lot size that's 10 times this. >> Gotcha. Thank you very much. You're welcome, >> Commissioner Confantini. Um, these uh trailers are all branded with the United Rental branding and they're all maintained in terms of the the locking, the bolts, the rust, the paint. The entirety of the unit is completely controlled by you. These are not all brought in from different entities and then stacked on your yard. Is that correct? >> Uh, correct. Rubber Heaton uh unit rentals. Um, and just for clarification, not a trailer, a container. Uh, so there is no wheels or chassis on on these ones. >> Locking mechanism mechanisms. >> Yes. So all containers will have uh at least the three points of contact for locking. Um and then we also additionally put a QC tag on each one of them so they're locked out. Uh they're also uh predominantly one trip containers which means it only came on one trip from uh China, Vietnam, uh South Korea predominantly for the West Coast where I came over. So very few if any of these containers will have rust or anything like that. They're not your your old rusted out typical uh container that we turn into an office. I just wanted to make that point because there was a slight uh misrepresentation in the staff report that there was a photograph that was just showing stocked containers and they were a variety of colors and and so I just wanted to make sure that that wouldn't be representation of what you have at your facility. >> Correct. They would come in bland and they would go out uh United Reynolds uh decal. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> And I think just for point of clarification that was from uh a merger with an Australian company. So as I pulled together that exhibit I happened to notice that that they were different colors. >> Yeah. Just happy to let the public know. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Visera. >> Great. Thank you. Um, just to build upon the stacking questions, uh, Jeff, could you or Reno Fire, uh, please briefly just describe how stacking of 50 ft will be monitored or verified for compliance over time, the ISO and ICC G5 standards, I think, as you noted in condition number eight. So the the condition requires so there's two conditions right there's condition number five which requires the the maximum of 50 um and that would be as with anything where we have condition number one that says as submitted. So um we we we were not going to go around and and uh um you know kind of inspect them on a regular basis or something like that. we could include it in the uh business license approval. Um but there's not a there's not a kind of a mechanism to ensure that they all of a sudden don't put a sixth level up there. Um it's just kind of that's what the condition says. So that's what what we would be limiting them to. >> Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Um and just to follow up maybe on that is u that all the although the site's fully industrial and I do recall there was like a rendering provided during your presentation. Um what visibility analysis confirms that five high that the five high stacks aren't visible from Lear Boulevard or the nearby corridors especially during winter when the foliage is sparse? >> The view sheds I think. >> So uh Commissioner Ber are you talking about the viewshed uh pictures? Yeah, exactly. >> Okay. Um, can you go back to my presentation? >> By the way, uh, Commissioner Gonfiantini, that that those are the that image is a little better, a little closer. >> Thank you. Um, so you're talking about these uh pictures here, Commissioner Bisera. >> Yeah, Jeff. Thank you. >> Right. So, yeah, I would submit that most of those trees are are deciduous, so yes, they probably will uh be um leaveless uh in in the winter um or soon to be in the fall. These trees that are further to the back though look to mostly be uh pine trees of some sort uh conifers of some sort. So they will still continue to provide screening. Um and those are to the back of this picture. Right. It's the same picture just a little bit further away. So those trees would continue to provide screening of those of those containers that are towards the rear of the site. Um and then over here looks like these are kind of a mixture. Looks like we have some conifers or or deciduous deciduous and evergreen trees. So, kind of a mixture of screening. There will be a fence with slats as well, but of course, that's only going to screen the lower level. Um, so I mean, at the end of the day, they're not going to be 100% screened, right? there's there's not a you know a specific mechanism uh to um screen something that height um without building you know kind of a a fence or a wall that is just impossible to build. So it's just kind of a relying on the fact that there is existing vegetation also distance from Lear Boulevard. Um especially when they get to four and five levels high because those are again as I said during the presentation approximately 650 ft from Lear and then you have the building that would screen uh uh the the containers towards the back of the site from anyone kind of immediately in front of the building there along Lear and then you've got the the vegetation. So, um, that's the the, you know, what staff relied on in terms of making that determination of not requiring any additional screening. And quite frankly, I don't know what additional screening you could provide. I just don't know how far you could or, you know, what you could build to to physically screen those things. >> Okay. Thanks, Jeeoff. I appreciate that. >> Uh, Commissioner, >> Commissioner Delvr, >> thank you, Commissioner Delvr. So, one quick question. I was I was out there to layer and to Manny's point, obviously the leaves are falling a little bit. I still thought that there was enough um sort of protection uh and and having some of that visibility. And I agree like a 50ft fence would be pretty silly. But one question I had was how tall is the building that's actually there? I was trying to looked like it was about 30 35 ft maybe even 40. I couldn't quite tell. >> Okay. Uh so I was just informed that it's about 29 ft and change. So roughly roughly three stories. Okay, that was that was the only question I had. I was just trying to like visualize while I was out there and it was it was hard. So, >> do we have any other member uh questions from members of the commission? Hearing none, we can now move to deliberations and any motions can be entertained at this time. Commissioner Gentini, I'm happy to support a motion. >> Commissioner Bera, just uh just wanted to share a couple quick thoughts on this one just because it follows um one that we just uh heard also in Ward 4. And um I'd just like to highlight the importance of just keeping balance along this corridor as industrial activity really increases. And um uh yeah, just just hope that um we're we're looking at it kind of holistically moving forward. And I I know staff and Jeff, you do a good job with that and we're all trying to do our best here, but um looks like uh Ward 4 is really getting intensified here on the industrial side and just hoping that we can find that good balance. Any other deliberations from the commission? Hearing none. Uh, Commissioner Gonfentini, would you like to proceed with a motion? >> Commissioner Gonfiantini, in the matter of case LDC260014, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings. >> Commissioner Williams, I second. Uh, Commissioner Williams, please proceed. >> Uh, Commissioner Williams, I second. >> We have a motion from Commissioner Gonfiantini and a second from Commissioner Williams. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any. >> Any any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries unanimously. We will now move on to our final public hearing item of the night. Item number 7.3, staff report for possible action and recommendation to city council. Case number LDC26-000011, South Valley's Park zoning map amendment. For this item, we will start with disclosures and then we will proceed with a staff presentation. Starting with Commissioner Gonantini. >> Commissioner Gonpiani read and reviewed all materials. Commissioner Jockman, uh, members of the commission, and Madame Clerk, here the applicant is seeking recommended adoption of his zoning map amendment. The applicant is a clan of my employer. On this matter, I sought guidance from the city's attorney's office. I have been advised that I have a perse commitment in a private capacity to the interests of my employer under NRS. I have also been advised that the independence of judgment of a reasonable of a reasonable person in my situation would be materially affected by my commitment in a private capacity to the interests of my employer. As such, I will not be participating or voting on this item today. Madame clerk, please accept this disclosure and lodge it on the record for this meeting pertaining to this agenda item. I will step out of the the room. Commissioner Williams, please proceed. All right. Thanks, Chair Jman. Uh, Commissioner Williams for disclosures uh read and viewed uh material provided and we'll just head to online in the same order. >> Mr. Sorry, Commissioner Delvr, I have read and reviewed the materials. Thank you for living with the subject. >> Commissioner Baltto, same disclosures. Commissioner Ramire, same. >> Commissioner Bera, same disclosures as Commissioner Dels. All right. Now that we're clear with disclosures, uh we'll open up to a staff report. Miss Picotti. >> Hello again, commissioners. Leah Picotti for the record. Uh this is the second application I'm presenting for you guys tonight, and this one is the South Valley's Park Zoning Map Amendment. So, this particular parcel is um close to 70 acres in size. We've probably all seen this down in South Reno. It is just north of the Interstate 580 and just to the west of South Virginia Street. Um this particular site is part of the um Wo Valley Park Library, Reno Ice sort of development that's going down there. And today's request is a zoning map amendment from mixeduse suburban to parks, greenways, and open space. I will preface this with this is another one of those situations that we've seen before where the zoning that the zoning district that has been applied that was applied in 2021 with our code update does not conform to the master plan of parks, greenways, and open space. And I'll get into that here in just a second. So, as you can see, the master plan on this site is currently parks, greenways, and open space. The there are several master plan policies that apply to this uh particular site and we can get into those a little bit more here in a minute. But you can see that the site is currently in the mixeduse suburban zoning district which does not conform to the parks greenways and open space master plan. And the basic reason for that is that this area was originally part of the South Virginia transit corridor which was eliminated in our previous code update. and basically everything that was within that corridor became mixeduse suburban including this particular parcel. However, because it's a park and it's always been a park and it has that master plan designation of parks, uh it doesn't really seem to make sense that it be developed in conformance with the mixeduse suburban standards, which is why we're here today. So, this is just a zoning map amendment to bring this site into conformance with the master plan. Um, again, those development standards didn't make sense on this particular property, so that is why they're changing it. Um, it does allow for expansion of park and public facilities. However, any entitlements that would be required for residential adjacency. There's a major drainage way on this site. Those still do apply. So, if it is developed in the future with non-residential type uses, that residential adjacency standards will still be triggered. and it will still require an entitlement. Zoning map amendment recommended findings are on the board. Staff was able to make all of the findings and is recommending approval of this. The recommended motion is on the board and I am available for questions as is the applicant. Thank you. >> Great. Thanks, Leah. Um I'm There is no staff or applicant presentation, correct? But they're here for questions. >> Correct. And then we do need to open up for public comment. >> All right. And Miss Madame Clerk, do we have anybody for comment? >> Um, I do not have any requests to speak forms. I don't have anyone in Zoom with their hand raised. We did receive other correspondence that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the record. >> All right. With uh no public comment here in the chambers. Uh we'll go right into questions from the commission. Who would like to start? Oh, >> I'm just here to answer the questions. >> Perfect. Okay. So, the applicant is here to answer questions. So, anybody on the commission, we can open up uh commissioner questions. >> Sure. Commissioner Ber uh for the record. >> Um let's see. There there were some kind of comments from the NAV uh folks. I think they were talking about like tree trees canopy. So, could staff uh I think it's Leah, right? You're presenting. So, could Leah um could staff ensure tree and shade metrics are integrated into the like future site plan review criteria for the park expansion? And I'm just kind of inferring here from public comment from NAB. >> Um, thank you, Commissioner Bisara. I Leoati for the record. I I'm not in entirely sure exactly what you're asking. >> Let's see. Uh, well, how about this? Let's um I NAB's concern about tree loss, I guess. Can the county commit to maintaining or increasing like shade tree canopy coverage as part of future development phases? >> Um I I'd have to defer to the application >> commissioner but Sarah this is this is Mikey for the record. Right now we're not considering a project. So there's nothing we cannot condition this zone change. Um when the county does come forward with future expansion plans that they'll be held to our development standards. Um, part of the reason that this makes more sense is it it's an existing park. It doesn't make sense to apply MS uh zoning standards to to a park. Um, but that does not get them out of complying with, you know, basic city codes. >> Yeah, perfect. Thanks for clarifying that, Mike. I appreciate it. Um, I at this time I don't have any other questions. Um, I think it's good that we're getting this into conformance, though. Thank you. All right, we have any other questions from the commission. >> Okie dokie. We will close that section and move on to commission discussion and then a possible motion if somebody has one. >> Commissioner Confantini, I'm ready to make a motion. >> All right, go ahead, Commissioner. >> Based on the compliance with the applicable findings, I move to recommend that the city council approve the zoning map amendment. Commissioner Delvier, I second. >> All right, we have a motion in a second. Um, all those in favor? >> I might have clarification. Is there an is there an LDC number there? I just not sure if I used it. >> Can you Can I read it? >> Yeah. Um, >> based on compliance with the applicable findings, I move case LDC26-000011. I move to recommend that the city council approve the zoning map amendment. If you'd like me to do that again, I'd be happy to. Sorry. >> Got it, Kelly. Okay. >> Is Commissioner Delvier. I second. >> All right. A second by Commissioner Delviar. All right. And for a vote, all those in favor? >> I >> I Okay, that concludes uh item 7 34. Just give a moment here and we'll have uh Chair Jockman right back. >> All right. And uh item 8.1, just as a following clarification, city manager Jackie Bryan is sick tonight, so we will be hearing that at the next planning commission meeting in a little over two weeks. Uh item number nine, Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. Uh Commissioner Velto, would you like to give this one? >> I don't believe there's anything to report. I'm trying to remember from the last meeting, but I don't really have anything to report. >> I can I can add to that. On September 25th, we had two items there. There was the presentation of the Cold Springs water balance analysis. We heard that and then the regional plan amendment, annual review and update of the regional plan that was passed. That was uh the business of that last uh TMRPA meeting. Moving on. Uh item number 10, commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. Hearing none, we will move forward to item number 11, public comment. Madame clerk, do we have any requests under this item? >> Um I think we just have Commissioner Bisera. >> Thank you. Yeah, this is Commissioner Bera for the record. Just wanted to take a brief moment to share an update on the uh community led data center convening held on October 1st at the UNR Innovation Center. I attended along with a lot of folks across jurisdictions and sectors. I think it went really well. It was an open public event with over 65 participants from city of Reno, Sparks, Washo County, Story County, Lion County, cities of Henderson, Fernley, uh research arms and private sector planners and consultants. Uh I submitted written remarks that kind of uh expand upon this in more detail, but I'll just close by thanking everyone who's contributed and definitely the Reno planning staff for supporting where they could, including their attendance in helping advance this conversation for our community's long-term well-being. Thank you. >> Uh with that I don't have any other public comment. >> Okay. Hearing none we will move to item number 12 adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Commissioner Williams motion to adjurnn. >> Commissioner Gettini second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Meeting adjourned. >> Thanks Tom. Good night. Thanks. Bye.