Okay, we'll now call to order the uh Wednesday, April 19th, 2023 Reno City Planning Commission. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner uh Johnson, will you lead us in the pledge? Ice to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Uh Michelle, can we have a roll call, please? here. Here, Peter Gower here. Mark Johnson here. Arthur Munoz here. Sylvia Villan Nouea will not be in attendance. And Alex Felto here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Uh we'll now open up public comment. Uh this is for an either general public comment or public comment on any action item. Do we have any requests to speak forms? It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is any disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. We received correspondence that was general in nature and not specific to any items on the agenda. This has been forwarded to the planning commission and entered into the record. We have anyone on Zoom? We do not have anybody on Zoom and we did not receive any voicemails. Great. Thank you. Would anyone in the public like to speak during general public comment? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes ma'am. The uh I believe what you have in your hand is specific to an item. You are also able to speak during public general public comment, but we will have a separate a separate section of public comment for that item. Okay. So, is it all on the north valley's planning? I'm sorry. I didn't know what the public comment was. Um, we'll have public comment on the Renoad corridor joint plan uh master plan amendment uh shortly if that's what you'd like to speak on. Yes. Great. Thank you. Okay, we'll close public comment. Um, we have the flexibility to move items around on the agenda. And since there's a number of people here, we're going to move the planning commission bylaws to the end of the agenda and open up public hearings. So, we'll open up uh item 5.1, which is case number LDC23-000051, Stone Residence, Major Deviation. We have a presentation tonight. Um, I do have a presentation, but I emailed it in. Is it available? Okay. Okay. Okay. Cool. You can just state your name for the record please. Yep. Uh, my name is Gordon Magn. Uh, I'm the applicant for this major deviation architect here in Reno. Um, I'm presenting on behalf of my client, uh, the homeowner at 214 West Taylor Street. And this is just a quick presentation on our need and requests for reduced side and rear yard setbacks for her property. Um, so this project started with my client's desire to rebuild her existing failing garage and add a home office to the residence. Um, this slide just shows a handful of pictures of the existing garage. It's pretty much falling apart. Um, our application also includes a letter from our structural engineer noting the substandard conditions of the garage and the need for it to be rebuilt. Um, always with these kinds of projects, I try to do them by right initially. Um, and we looked at um, building to the current required setbacks and it became quickly evident that that was just not going to be possible to rebuild it either within the existing footprint or to the current required setbacks. Um, this slide shows a survey of the property in question with the garage that we're talking about and it has uh existing non-conforming setbacks of 3'8 on the sideyard and 1T3 and 3/4 on the rear yard. And the same survey extends to the neighbor's property which is at 805 Forest Street, but that uh they have a garage that's kind of parallel to ours and it opens up to uh Taylor Street and they also have non-conforming setbacks of only 11 and quarter 11 and a/4 in on the sideyard and 2'6 and a half in the rear yard. Um these neighbors also provided a letter of support of our proposed setback and the project as part of our application. And these two buildings consist of the entire block face from Plumis to Forest Street and was used as the basis to calculate the average prevailing side and rear yard setbacks to support our request. Um so this is just the math. Um the average side setback along the block face is 2 feet. Our request is three in lie of five which is current in the zoning. That's greater than prevailing and a slight decrease from existing which is 3'8. And then our average rear yard setback along the block face is 1 foot7 and our request is three in lu five and that is greater than prevailing and existing. Um and it's should be noted it's a substantial increase from the existing condition of 1 foot 3 and 3/4. Um, back to the original point, I mean, to build the garage to the to the uh required 5ft rear and sideyard setbacks would not allow us to build a functional code compliant garage, and it just was not viable from a construction cost standpoint either. Um, so our project, proposed project is very simple. It's a ground floor garage with a small utility area, laundry zone, and then a stair to an upper office with bath. Um, and these plans are drawn to the requested 3-foot side and rear yard setbacks. And we also provided a an elevation. Um, and this is the street side elevation to illustrate the proposed height in relationship to the existing house. Our height is uh only 21 ft 1 in tall, which is far below the 35 ft allowed in the zoning. And then the next couple slides just show before and after insight um renderings of the project. So this is just the street view of the existing condition. Uh next one shows our proposed addition. And then there's another couple renderings of the same thing like kind of more front- view um with the addition. And really these are just to illustrate that we feel that this fits within the existing fabric of the neighborhood and character and request is u you know meets the intent of the code. And that is all I have. Um, thanks for your time. I want to thank Jeff for all his time helping out with our application. So, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those now or Great. Thank you. We'll call you up if we have questions. Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have to weave our presentation tonight? I sure do. Well, that's getting queued up. Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. So here we have uh the stone residence major deviation LDC 2351. Um we Michelle, can we get the Is there a way to get the thing off the top? You're covering my fine artwork language. Perhaps not. Well, we'll just deal with it. So, project information. The site size is approximately 0.08 acres. It is developed with a single family home with a detached singlecar garage. And the request that is before us tonight is a major deviation to reduce the required minimum side and rear yard setbacks from 5t to 3 ft, which is a 40% reduction. And as you know, a major deviation would allow up to a 50% reduction, bringing the set back down to 2 and 1/2 ft. The key issue is compatibility with surrounding land uses. Actually, I want to go back to this one real quick. So, as a frame of reference, uh the site is a couple blocks east of or sorry, west of Virginia and a couple blocks northeast of Plumis Park. Just to orient you there. Um so, the compatibility with surrounding uses. Um, to the north we have apartments. To the west we have a parking lot associated with a church that's across the street across Taylor. To the northwest and to the south and east we have single family residences. Here's the zoning district mixeduse midtown residential and the m the master plan is urban mixeduse. And here are a handful of policies and goals that uh support the major deviation. So, the compatibility with surrounding uses, the house was built in 1916, and it is unknown when the garage was built, but it's probably around the same time frame. As the applicant pointed out, the garage is in uh disrepair, dilapidated, and um uh has some issues. So, that's why they're proposing it to be to uh replace it. Um the applicant went over the setbacks uh the non-conforming setbacks under existing conditions. I'm not going to go through those numbers again. I do however want to point out that in the staff report that the side setback for the adjacent neighbors garage was incorrectly listed as 11 ft 1/4 in. As the applicant pointed out, it's 11 in 11 and 1/4 in. The proposed site plan is an attached garage with an upper floor office and bathroom that is 3 ft from both the side and the rear property line. So in effect, they are pulling the garage back further than the existing condition on the rear and moving it slightly closer to the side property line in comparison with the existing conditions. The proposed design staff feels that the addition is consistent with the neighborhood development patterns and will not significantly impact nearby properties. The applicant showed these same two photos. Um I've just spliced them together so you can see before and after at the same time. Um the neighbor uh to the east which is to the left in this picture um is in support. That neighbor is at 805 Forest. Um and a NAB comment was submitted on Monday of this week that's not in your packet. Um that is also in support. Uh basically saying that this neighborhood has a lot of unpermitted and and halfhazard uh types of of developments uh garages, things like that. And this would represent an improvement to existing conditions. Staff did include an allowable days and hours of construction condition due to the fact that there are residences nearby. Condition number five. Uh here are the major deviation recommended findings and analysis. And here's the recommended motion. I'm available for questions. Great. Thank you so much. Uh we'll come back to the commission for disclosures. Uh we'll start with Commissioner Gower. Thank you. I visited the site. Commissioner Mus, no disclosures. Commissioner Armstrong, no disclosures. Commissioner Dracula, I have visited the site. Commissioner Johnson, familiar with the site. Uh, Commissioner Belveltto, familiar with the site. Uh, we'll now move to public comment and open up public comments. Do we have any request to speak forms? We do not. We did receive correspondence which was forwarded to the planning commission and entered into the record. We don't have any voicemail smells. Great. Thank you. Uh would anyone like to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close public comments. Come back to the commission for questions of the applicant or staff or discussion. Mr. Chair, I have a quick question for staff, please. Jeff. So Jeeoff, I'll give you the standard one that I get every time there's a major deviation here. I always struggle with I always struggle with finding number three about what we're looking at here not granting uh constitute special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use district and why it's in and how it is uh located. So, I see that staff has made that, but can you explain to me your your rationale in how the approval of this is not uh a special privilege that is inconsistent with what's going on elsewhere. So, um on the screen here, um I do have the my analysis was that the proposed addition is consistent with patterns of development in the neighborhood. And one way the way that I look at it is a major deviation by its general nature is is a special privilege that so by I mean any major deviation in a way is a is you're granting a special privilege. So the way I rationalized it is that that the proposed addition is consistent with the other patterns of development in the neighborhood. So it's they're not in essence they're not getting something that doesn't already exist. Okay. So then taking that the next step and we have an example even in I think the description and the presentation there is a site immediately adjacent to this with a similar situation and a potential for the need to replace a garage in that situation and under this scenario um because all of this is there and because it's an existing pattern we're not granting them anything special because this is an existing situation. Would you feel the same way if the garage was not there was no current garage in this location? So if if the applicant did not have a current garage, if there was no existing garage there or next door, would would you have supported this request for an an addition and a major deviation? It certainly would have been harder. Um, as as the applicant pointed out, the block face was defined between the two streets and and the garages kind of presented that that context for for the staff's uh with the applicant's position and staff support uh in terms of the existing conditions. So certainly I believe it would have been harder had it not existed. Okay. So based on the existing conditions and the pattern of development in the immediate vicinity, you feel staff feels this is appropriate and not special privilege being provided to somebody that nobody else can get. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. G. Jeff, can you put uh if you don't mind, put up the elevation view? That was the first time I'd seen that. Um I you know I'm just going to kind of call out the obvious difference between these two images and it's for me it's the height of the building um of the the new addition relative to what's there now. How does staff evaluate building height in a setback scenario where in my opinion the the uh the extent or the feel of the nonconformity of the existing structure in that setback would be less than the below the proposed structure because of the height of the building it creates. it it's more imposing potentially on the neighbor relative to a shorter structure. So, how does staff look at that when you're looking at So, Commissioner Gower, so the the staff looked at it in a in in a couple of ways. One is we can see that in in the just in the immediate picture we can see other twotory structures you know kind of parsed around the the to the back left and to the uh back right we have other taller structures you know essentially adjacent to the parcel. So it doesn't this addition doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, right? So it's it yes it is taller but than the existing house and the garage to the west or to the east, sorry. Um but there's also an elevational difference there too because this street is sloped. So the the applicant's property is already higher than the you know the neighbor to the to the east. Um so the garage therefore sits up higher in relation. Uh but so you have the surrounding structures, you also have the fact that the zone allows a house, sorry, a structure up to 35 feet and they're only proposing 21. So a delta 14 ft. You know, it could be a lot taller. Um and then last but not least is the fact that the neighbor actually supports their application. Uh and there's a letter in the in the uh staff report to that effect. If the neighbor was in opposition, clearly we you know it'd be a different situation. but that very neighbor who is the most impacted potentially the most impacted is in support. So for those reasons uh that's you know why staff made the recommendation. And just as a followup if I could Mr. Chairman the so the adjacent property owner who was was supportive of the project sounded like that property owner was thinking about doing a similar thing. So, you're not concerned about um similar to Commissioner Johnson's question, this essentially creating, you know, similar projects in this neighborhood. It's do you feel that the the pattern of development that's there now is appropriate? So, this type of project, if it's replicated, would still be appropriate. So, we're not setting a precedent that we're not comfortable with having roll out in other examples. Fair, fair question. So, um, while I'm looking at this case on its own merits and as staff reviewed this case on its own merits, clearly there is the potential, right? So, that the the neighbor may come in with an application down the road. Um, who knows what that might look like in terms of the setbacks, the height, anything, right? It's all speculative at this point. But I think overall if we were to pan out and have even a a broader picture here uh in terms of the neighborhood you would see uh you know a a lot of other you know one and a half twotory type of of of development. In fact just across the street to the north are multiple two-story buildings. So um yeah it's I don't think it's creating a precedent that is a challenge. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Any further questions or discussion or a motion? Mr. M. Make a motion. Please do. The case number LDC23-000051 Stone Residence Major Deviation. Based on compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the major deviation subject to the condition conditions list in the staff report and I can make the findings. Great. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Dracula. I second. All those in favor? I opposed. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Okay, we'll we'll now open up item 5.2, case number LDC23-000030, Fire Creek Crossing Resort uh Casino. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, Andy Derling with Wood Rogers representing the applicant in a minute. Uh Andy Derling Wood Rogers representing the applicant. Um can I control this? Sorry. There we go. Uh before you tonight, the Fire Creek um Resort Casino project. Uh it's a project that has actually been before the planning commission a few different times in different uh maturations. This is a much larger project and we'll get into some of the details obviously. Uh but just starting with kind of a a flavor of the architecture of the building um that we'll be proposing with this um the applicant themselves elevation entertainment um um Ryan Stone, Ms. Kavorian and uh Heather Guer from Elevation are with us tonight. Uh happy to answer any questions as we go through this. Um they currently own uh a couple of card rooms um are in the gaming space in California um both in the San Diego area as well as Sacramento. So they're bringing that experience up to Reno. This will be their first um resort style project. Just uh some of the um nuts and bolts of this. This is a conditional use permit to construct a new hotel with non-restricted gaming. Uh it also has uh grading that results in fills greater than 10 ft in in some very minor areas. Uh the site location is on the on the south side of town just um on the corner. It's the northwest corner of Virginia Street and Kitsky right across from the convention center. Um we did have uh public outreach as part of this the public engagement program that we that we that we had as part of this conducted a town hall self um town hall ultimately um conducted that virtually had about 40 um people come. also went to the NAB as would be standard practice. Um about 10 or 12 people uh that spoke on the project at the NAB. Um these are just kind of some of the um themes that came out of that public engagement. Um by and large a lot of the comments that came forward um were quite frankly not things that would be you know be indicative of the of the actual um physical nature and things that we could change with the physical proposal of of the development itself. um you know, things like, you know, smoking in the casino, um local amenities that we providing, things like that. Um the entertainment, the types of entertainment that they may have at the at the facility. Uh but the things that we could impact um that we could address things like traffic, pedestrian safety, um noise um those are all things that we did take into account uh along with the the comments that we received from city staff as well as outside agencies and ultimately incorporated those into what we believe is a a very sound plan uh to bring forward to you tonight. The site itself consists of two parcels. Uh the eastern portion is a vacant parcel. um kind of has some seasonal uses. It's often a Christmas tree lot and and um during election years, has a a plethora of election campaign signs on the corner there of Kitsky and Virginia. Very busy intersection. Uh the western parcel is part of the Fire Creek Crossing Shopping Center. Um it has two big box retail stores. The Old Circuit City, um they went out of business 15 years ago, but I think this store closed about 20 years ago. Um and then the sports authority um they that as a company went out of business about 10 years ago but I think that location closed about 15 years ago. So both retail stores have been vacant for a number of years. Uh have sat there you know kind of in a in in a um you know very underutilized some may say a blighted state. Um and quite frankly you know those big box retail um tenants just you know really disappeared from our market with obviously online retailers and um other um shopping destinations. Those are just um very difficult spaces to fill and it's obvious um having sat there vacant for the last 20 years. Um just giving you kind of a flavor of what is out there. Um, you know, the parking lot, it is maintained, but it's, you know, it's in, um, you know, it's starting to degrade. And then the vacant parcel, unfortunately, has been, um, had several, uh, homeless encampments over the years, and it continues to be sort of a cordon code enforcement issue to continually go in there and, uh, and get those uses out. From a master plan and zoning perspective, um, it is master plan suburban mixed use in the convention center. Um, so it it used to be the convention regional center, now the reimagine Reno identifies it as uh that convention center portion of the master plan. Uh, it's zoned mixed urban and and in addition to the zoning, it also has the gaming overlay. So, it's in gaming uh district 1. Um, and you can see on the bottom there uh in the yellow hatched areas. Um, they're actually the remaining kind of gaming areas in the city of Reno outside of downtown are getting becoming more and more limited. Um this parcel with the underutilized retail and the vacant parcel really present one of the few um um areas that we could actually see these gaming uses without significant redevelopment of the areas. Just the stats on this little under 20 acres um little um right around 1.1 million square ft of building that consists of 62,500 ft of gaming area. Um, a 13-story uh 201 room hotel. Uh, five-story parking garage, which if I can point uh I can't point. Uh, outdoor pool deck on the second floor. Uh, outdoor courtyard, which we're referring to as a park experience. Uh, on the on the east side, that kind of horseshoe shaped aspect there. Uh, six restaurants and a food hall, ballroom, uh, and a sports book. Overall 1.32 um floor area ratio. This is in the South Virginia um transit corridor. So, you know, for the last 20 years, regional planning has identified this and the city has identified this as an area they want to see the most intense development. Um, and there's a minimum standard in this uh area for a 75 F. So, we're coming in well over that. Uh, and just over 1,800 parking spaces, about 1500 of those in the in the parking garage and 300 plus or minus in the actual surface lot. this property um the vacant property was previously owned by currently owned and under contract um from Station's casino. Um they had proposed a number of different types of casinos on this over the years and ultimately nothing was built. Um but that property comes with a grandfathered gaming license associated with the old turf club uh which was downtown here and was ultimately displaced with the retract project. So, the city when they undergrounded the um train tracks that came through downtown, they entered into relocation agreements with a number of properties um to um I believe actual gaming properties that had grandfathered licenses that didn't have hotel rooms, didn't have parking, did you know, essentially were non-conforming uses as they stand or as they stood at that time. And so, they they um uh entered into these relocation agreements. There are seven degrees of um nonconformity that were identified that could be carried forward. Of those, we are rectifying all of them. Uh the exception being the um hotel rooms themselves. Um a new project would have to provide 301 hotel rooms. We're providing 201 and that's by virtue of that relocation agreement. It gives some some flexibility on that and we can get into more detail as I'm going to probably run out of time. Um, as for general code conformance with code currently, um, there are a number of, uh, regulations that are associated with gaming properties, um, uh, several of the kind of the the the bigger ones I've identified on this matrix, we're required to have a minimum ratio of 1:1 public space to gaming floor area. We have a 3 to1 ratio of public space to gaming area. Um, we can't exceed the 37,500 ft of um, gaming area until we've provided the public space. We are obviously doing that. Uh we have to have a minimum 201 uh 201 hotel hotel rooms by virtue of that relocation agreement. We are providing that. Uh we have to have um in because we're in um close proximity to the convention center. We actually have a number of other regulations that come into play. Uh we have to have 20,000 ft of convention space. So our 21,000 square foot uh ballroom is a flexible um space that could be used for ballroom, you know, kind of a ballroom, banquetss, convention area. Um so we're covering that. Uh we have to have a minimum 3500 35,000 of gaming area with slots and live games. We're obviously doing that. Um three restaurants open one open 24 hours. We've got up to six restaurants that and at least um one of those will be open 24 hours. Uh we need to provide connection to and amenities that support the convention center. Um we have our pedestrian orientation when we get into looking at the site plan towards the convention center and we have numerous supporting amenities that would provide that. uh our maximum building height uh that we could have is 300 feet and the hotel tower is being proposed at 185 feet. One of the the major things um that came up in our public engagement efforts was concerns about traffic uh also was the subject of a number of um the comments that we received from city staff and and outside agencies. And so um identified on your screen here are are kind of three of the intersections um that were of of kind of primary concern. Uh I'll focus on the first two here. We actually went in and redesigned the project based on the feedback from city staff. Uh ultimately um having a major entrance and an ingress only, so an entrance only off of Fire Creek Crossing. So that existing signal there will bring traffic in to a long driveway, a multi-lane driveway with a long throat distance that ultimately leads you towards the garage. The garage inside the garage is the valet uh and hotel check-in. So, a lot of traffic we anticipate going in there. Uh, and then there's also an opportunity to go right into the surface parking and towards this um um kind of major hotel entrance here with the portico that would be promoted as kind of the Uber lift um drop off pickup area. So, we're able to kind of separate some of that traffic and ultimately it can then exit out onto Kitsky or can exit through the garage um onto Kumi Lane on the north side. So this provides kind of a nice clockwise rotation uh for that circulation of traffic. The other um major aspect that came up was this intersection of Kumley and South Virginia. Um Lauren Hilson with Headway Transportation um did a signal warrant analysis of that. Uh it does meet a number of the warrants. um while it doesn't necessarily meet the intersection spacing uh between these two signals um it does meet a lot of those warrants and Lauren's recommendation and was shared by um city staff is that that is an appropriate location for a traffic signal that does a lot um to really improve things out there obviously from a traffic perspective it's you know high controlled intersection it's going to move traffic very well but also it provides that really safe pedestrian crossing location for um you know patrons of the convention center coming across cost to to um take part of the the amenities that are part of this property. This is a landscape plan. Um we are required to have by code to have 10% landscaping. Uh we're actually providing 18% um which includes along the frontages. We'll be constructing new sidewalk that's separated by that that parkway strip. Uh it's a actually a wider um parking lot set back al along those um rights of way. The major feature here is this park element in the middle. um really trying to sort of turn the inside of the casino outward, if you will, so that that space is, you know, may have some small live entertainment. It's got outdoor dining. The um uh restaurants surround this kind of horseshoe shaped park area, so outdoor dining opportunities, a small bar, coffee shop, things like that. So really trying to activate that space so it becomes more of a community amenity to where um you know this is that plaza that you would come into and really want to spend time at 365 days out of the year. This is a rendering of that park experience again kind of showing highly amenitized space. Um you know trying to uh emphasize also uh the second deck pool up here whether it's a water feature or like a garden wall of some sort in the future. Um but ultimately trying to you know connect those two uses. The second story has um that spa and would have that spa and pool element up there. Again just some more renderings. This would be the the rooftop pool deck um you know pool restaurant and bar up there as well. This would be the uh hotel entrance inside the garage. So really trying to make that a sense of arrival within the garage itself. And then a view of the main uh casino entrance porticoer on on the on the south side of the building facing Kitsky gives you a little bit of flavor of the architecture here. It's trying to be reminiscent of more of kind of a contemporary Tahoe style kind of uh uh you know pulling in some of the natural features the you know Tahoe blue in the windows um but more in in a in a kind of sophisticated and elegant way with um stone and wood elements that would be um mixed in as well. This gives you an ideal idea of the the actual building massing. The majority of the casino building is essentially a two-story um structure. Uh the hotel tower itself is 13 stories. Um but it's a relatively small footprint. And so the the um um perspective of that from the surrounding area, it is a very narrow u perspective. And then obviously the fivetory park garage trying to um kind of give this in context for the neighborhood. So um here's the site. identified on this uh aerial image. There is some residential in the area obviously the you know major shopping centers that are around it. The convention center obviously is a very large structure to the east of us. Um there are some apartments to the northwest. Um some single family further to the west. So our 13story tower it's about 16,000 square footprint. So again it's relatively small. Uh and that residential is separated 400 to 750 ft away. giving you a little context of how that compares to maybe some of the other properties in the area like the Atlantis uh and the Peppermill. Uh the Peppermill Resort Spa, their Tuscan Towers, we we believe 17 stories. Uh it's a 31,000 ft uh footprint, so it's about double the footprint that we're proposing. Uh and it's got 225 ft of separation essentially right across the street from existing residential, which you know, there's quite a bit of multif family that is due west of the Peppermill. uh and their view is kind of a of a of a broadside of of it versus what we're trying to propose in this kind of you know more um uh sleek and and narrow uh profile. The Atlantis further away from residential you know quarter mile or so away from residential. So not necessarily the concern there but just by uh you know kind of order of comparison it's uh up to a 27 story tower and that uh footprint of that hotel tower itself is about 32,000 ft. Just to give you some more context, obviously very, you know, bigger properties. Um, both I believe are 40 plus acres and and have a lot more rooms and a lot more gaming area. But just to give you kind of some context of the scale of our building versus um those uh we are in agreement with SAS recommendations. We would like to request one modification to um condition number two. Uh we did discuss this with staff and I believe they can they can present um um hopefully their support of this. Essentially, it's it's the time frame associated with when we would need to um submit and and and get the approval of our first permit, building permit. Um standard conditional use permits u are allowed to, you know, uh allowed 18 months before you have to submit a building permit. Obviously, a project of this size, uh it's very large. Um the way it's been designed, it really doesn't lend itself to phasing. So, it's going to occur in one phase. Um so, there's extensive design effort that has to go into that. We're anticipating 12 to 18 months just on the design alone once it gets kicked off. Uh it is a high-rise. So that, you know, brings in a lot more um coordination efforts with uh the city building permit uh and building officials upfront to make sure that we're covering kind of the the issues and concerns that would be relative to a high-rise. Um and so that overall design and permit and approval process we anticipate is going to be a little bit longer than you would anticipate for normal u projects. Again, by kind of um a way of of you know um comparison, the previous station casino um project that was proposed just on the vacant parcel, much much smaller project um they were given 24 months for their first phase uh to be provided or to be uh proposed. So we we would respectfully request that that you grant 36 months for that first building permit. And with that um that I made it in time. This is kind of the nighttime scene of the park element. just to leave you with and and we'd be happy to our team would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thanks. Great. Thank you. Uh Brooke, do we have a presentation? I do. Good evening, planning commission. My name is Brook Oswald. I am an associate planner with development services. I want to thank the applicants representative for giving a very thorough um uh presentation on that to go into some of the details on that. Might I'll keep mine a little briefer so we're not going over a lot of that and some of the issues that we looked at from a staff level. So the case before ULDC 230030, the Fire Creek Crossing uh resort casino, it is a conditional use permit. That is for uh two things. That's for uh the establishment of a hotel with unrestricted gaming and for uh cuts and fills. Uh quickly go over the project site and location. Approximately 20 acre site. Uh we are looking at that resort casino in that area. Uh the the larger out here. So this is uh 395 that we're looking at coming down through and crossing over uh North Virginia there. Our next site, this is the convention center. I think this is really key. This is one of our regional centers that we're looking at. Our downtown being another one of those major re uh regional centers. Uh these areas are really um specific both for our community, our econ economics of our community, but also uh as a tourism base and the uh direct adjacency of that. Uh coming in closer to the site, uh once again, this is the the corner of uh Kitsky and uh North Virginia, as was mentioned, the the sort of political soap box of our community. Um it is uh two two parcels currently. Um, we are seeing a vacant parcel and then the vacant big boxes. We are seeing some existing retail there in the corner. A small amount of retail on there. If we look at the building format and sort of massing format, we're seeing those larger big box buildings to the south of this site. Uh, once again, the convention center up and to the right. And then we're seeing additional shopping larger format shopping buildings. Uh out further one, as was demonstrated, we have the Atlantis Casino, Peppermill Casino, very large format, large uh expansive for uh sort of resort casinos. Um in close proximity, we do have a residential development off just up to the northwest corner of this. I'll speak a little bit more when we have the map and and how staff looked at that and potential impacts there. Uh really goes to the orientation of the building and some of the sighting of the building. Uh once again going over the shopping centers uh quickly looking at our master plan. Our master plan that is that SMU we do have actually specific for this area also some master plan policies but really we're looking at one of those areas of priority infill. This has been a really underutilized privilege uh parcel in a very uh an area that we we want to uh encourage economic development and development as a whole. Uh we see that relation to transit down north Virginia. We have our bus rapid transit that runs from downtown currently down out to Meadowwood Mall. Um as part of one of the conditions they will be um working with RTC to develop a pad on that site and a station site on that. So we're seeing that great uh public transit connectivity. Those are running about every 10 minutes. So as is connecting our downtown to this area and they are currently working on a further study that will go all the way out to the south end of town and so we'll be looking at uh transit oriented development and other things in that way. So this is really a key site as we're looking at that connectivity of both our regional centers and that public transit that we have in this area. And then uh as I sort of showed that demonstration that massing and that and that grading those larger buildings, you know, we do have the height of 185 ft. It does allow up to 300 feet with those 200 200 hotel rooms. So we're we're well, you know, 100 ft over that. But because of that spacing of those shopping centers and sort of that structure of that big box, it really sort of sits out in a in a large spans there and um away from uh most of the residential in the area. Looking at zoning, we have that mixeduse zoning. We have additional standards or mixed use urban zoning. We have additional standards in that will come into that. But the big one here at play is we have a gaming overlay. So, we're looking at the gaming overlay and part of that once again is looking at that adjacency of that regional center, the history of that of knowing when that convention center came in that this is a vital and a key economic center of our community and additionally knowing that tourism is a big part of that. So, just to go into a little bit of the history of of how we are um not conforming to um some of the hotel room standards and that's the one non-conformity that we won't we so that's based on the relocation of the turf club. The turf club was a casino that existed down along uh the railroad area in our downtown area. Um when we did the retract which is basically took the atrade uh rail crossing and and subsurfaced that about two miles of that that displaced a number of businesses along there and so in those agreements with those businesses it was determined that they would allow them to reestablish uh with those non-conformms and agreements were set and then we also have RMC code that further details and extends it. So this was extensively sort of vetted and thought through of how um basically we'd make these businesses whole that were or relocated for a public good and uh that as I said it's RMC adoption and then we have a relocation agreement. Now we do have those non-conformance the applicants representative went from a number of those uh the one there is one uh that they are are will be in the non-conformance and that's the hotel rooms. So they are not required to have a hotel rooms. The original turf club did not they they um through the agreement extended that but uh they because of the gaming they're extending past the amount of gaming and for so every 125 ft of gaming they have to u have a required hotel room so that comes out to 201 hotel rooms that they'll be required be required to have now that non-conformance so we will have conformance that landscaping they will have to meet all uh RMC code as was explained they are 18% over the 18 so they will exceed the the code. Um, their signage meets all signage requirements. Their parking is met. Um, so we're seeing conformance in every area except for that hotel room. Our site design compatibility, it is incredibly large site, a million uh approximately 60,000 foot building, that 13story hotel. Um, as we can see, as I explained before, the up to the northwest corner of the site is where we're seeing a multifamily development. If you look at the location that is located against that uh parking structure, we're seeing low activity. All the lights will be u uh shielded from the neighboring properties as we we normally see within. We're seeing low use. We have one direct access out and a right turn only, minimizing that overall traffic impact to those upper neighborhoods. Additionally, we're seeing the loading on that side that will have to meet all our buffering and screening requirements on that and does pull that away. We are seeing sort of more of the activity center pushed out to our major arterial roadways having less impact on those those adjacent properties and go over just the site once again. Uh looking at this site facing out towards Kitsky, we have that interior courtyard um creating interest and as you can see the overall scope of the 13story building over the the the complex itself. It is sort of uh not dominant within the site itself and and doesn't over dominate and it is in context with the surrounding buildings. Um we are seeing that restaurant and required retail within that uh both uh additional economic drivers and then we are seeing the surface and garage parking lots. Additionally in that uh within that parking uh we do have a condition that does require EV. So we will see some EV uh stations and then additionally we've required EV ready stations within that. So we have looked sort of the future with our public transit and some of the the the other uh charging stations and electrical vehicles coming online. So we do have a recommend condition. There was a um a memo that was distributed to the the planning commission. It was based on uh um requirements or request from our um our local airport, the the Reno Tahoe airport. and it really deals with reaching out to them, making sure they're getting proper FA permits on height and some of these things and and not impacting our our regional airport. Additionally, staff is in agreement with what was proposed by the uh applicants representative of the extension of that timeline. We look at that as that that scale and scope of the project uh being a requirement helping to extend that. Staff sees many benefits of of pushing that timeline could push um applications coming in that we have more time on the back end to to work on. So it gives them to really complete that work with our staff to have a very complete package where they come in. Um they would have the addition of having another year extension and then a half year uh through the process that we have that would be about four and a half years and and several what we've had before you tenative maps which is a four-year process and we would look kind of the scope of scale of this project being similar to many of the the subdivision projects and we have in many ways much more complicated with our structural and what we need. So staff is supportive of that. Staff could make all the findings. I'll leave you with a motion and it does uh include the condition of 15 as presented and then uh if you please add in the uh if if uh at the discretion of the the um planning commission adding in the the extension of the time. I'll leave you with that and available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll come back to commission for disclosures. Start with Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Johnson, I visited the site and met with the applicants representative and we received I think we received an email on that as well. Commissioner Dracula, same disclosures. Commissioner Armstrong, same disclosures. Commissioner M. So, I'm familiar with the site and I briefly spoke with the applicants representative. Thank you, Commissioner Gar. I uh visited the site, met with the applicant's representative and viewed uh email correspondents. Uh Commissioner Belto, same disclosures. Uh I also represent the airport, though I don't think that presents a conflict. Uh just wanted to disclose that. Okay, we'll open up public comments. Do we have any request to speak forms? We did not receive any any correspondence, voicemails, or requests to speak forms and do not have anyone via Zoom that would like to speak. Right. Would anyone in the public like to speak on this item, please? I just wanted to know. Oh, if you could um uh if you could approach uh go over the this way and you can fill out a form and then step up to the podium and tell us what you have to say. To go over there. Oh, you can do that afterwards. Okay. Well, I just wanted to know because I couldn't see on the map there. Could you just state your name for the record please? Linda Sanchez. Thank you. And I wanted to know about the um Arb uh the um uh the Starbucks, Applebee's, Toys R Us. Are they going out? Are you guys moving them or what? Because they're right there. I didn't see them. U ma'am, if you could direct your comments towards us. Okay. This is my first time, so totally understand. So, are they still going to be there? Uh so, we can't answer your questions. Okay. I do imagine though someone from the applicants team would be able to speak with you if you want to make a statement to us and then speak with them. I'm sure they could answer some questions. Okay. And then the other thing I wanted to ask about is in that neighborhood there's a noise ordinance back there. Is that going to affect anything? We we can't answer your questions during this time. I apologize. Wow. Okay. That so I would have to ask them. Yeah. They might be able to answer your questions, but if you have a statement to give us, we can certainly hear it. No. Okay. So, I just talk to them then, right? Okay. Thank you. Go over here and sign. Thank you. Would anyone else in the public like to speak on this item? Yes sir. My name is Dan Langshaw. I'm in that area quite a lot and I'm just concerned hopefully in our planning stage they look at Kumley and Virginia Street when they do that intersection. There's a couple things in that intersection that affect us. Now there's unintended consequences with the the popular coffee shop there and the traffic. Plus, when the convention center has a big event, a lot of people park in that empty lot and that people trying to cross Virginia Street. So hopefully in our planning stage, they look at the pedestrian crossing of Virginia Street and even after they open, look at maybe putting a a bridge over like the Atlantis did. So keep an eye on the the public walkways. Great. Thank you. If you could fill out a request to speak form, that'd be great. Okay. Uh, seeing no other people in the audience that want to speak, we'll close public comment, come back to the commission for disclosures. I'm sorry for questions. Apologies. My apologies. Thrown off. Mr. Chair, if I may, Commissioner Draculich. Uh question for the applicant. Can you just give us some a better idea about the enhancements with that traffic signal on Cunley and Virginia Street and just help me understand too what we're going to do with Dutch Brothers in that traffic and how that will look or how does that pan out or what was in the plans there? Sure. So, can I get my presentation back please just for a graphic while that's coming up? So yes, we um well I'm going to wait. So uh as part of the kind of the comprehensive traffic study, we looked at obviously all the intersections that would be um tying into the adjacent roadways of which there are five. Um and that Kumley and South Virginia obviously was a very key intersection um for the overall circulation of not just our site but you know the region as a whole. Um, we understand there are some issues there with uh the Dutch brothers and while they're across the street and it's really difficult for us to do anything um to fix their issues, right? Uh we can't really fix their issues. They have essentially stacking issues for their drive-thru. Um when um Headway Transportation did their analysis of the intersection there, um they did find that a number of the warrants um for a traffic signal were met uh and proposed that um for a couple of different reasons. most importantly for pedestrian crossings. Um so that location we anticipate is going to be a key location for pedestrians crossing from the convention center. Um right now they may be going to the Dutch Bros or some of those other shopping centers there, but ultimately we anticipate they're going to be coming to this property. Um that traffic signal is a highly controlled intersection. So it's going to stop traffic and allow for the crossing of pedestrians in one fell swoop. we've designed it accordingly at least you know preliminarily and and and would would continue to look at it in obviously more detail with the final design um but provided um a wider sidewalk queuing area uh on our side of the street to allow for you know the queuing up of pedestrians as they wait for that traffic signal. Um, you know, we know that in the area, you know, the convention center, um, you know, may not be filled every day, but when it does have the big events, um, you know, one in particular that keep coming up when we were talking to people is, you know, the big volleyball tournament that they that they have there. And with, you know, all those players and their families wanting to find places to eat and things like that, we know that there's a lot of crossing that that happens. So, we're really confident that traffic signal is going to provide a very safe pedestrian um crossing opportunity for um for pedestrians. I'm sorry if you mentioned it before. Two crosswalks or just one in what side? There would be, I believe, crosswalks on both sides. Um, so currently there's this kind of pork chop island. So that would be kind of a logical location there. And we'd anticipate probably on the Dutch Brothers side as well. So you'd have kind of crosswalks on all four legs of that intersection. Okay, that'd make the most sense to me. And if you don't mind with the followup on that, um, is there going to be able to be a U-turn? So if you're coming out on Counley, can you U-turn on back onto Counley? Um, I don't know that you would be able to U-turn back on Kumi just because of the it's it's relatively narrow there. It is it is four lanes. Um, but that would be a tough uh U-turn. Um, you would have the opportunity uh to kind of navigate back towards this. Um, this is kind of the little frontage road that is between our property and the Sam's Club. Um, that's a full movement intersection here. Um, so the the parking garage has a couple different ways in and out of it. Um, this is a full access movement here. Um this would be essentially the self park u portion. Uh I kind of breeze through this but um the main entrance as I mentioned in my presentation on um to the kind of valet and hotel check-in is on the first floor. Um this um self park entrance which is an you know ingress and egress with the full movement here is on the second floor. So they are detect you know kind of separated both grade and and um horizontally. So you could come back to this location to make the left onto Kumley. And that's what I wasn't clear on that if there was egress coming from the south end of the garage. That's good to know. If a lot of people were flowing to the north side of the property and turning right, there may be people who want to turn left onto Counley. I believe there's a median there and you can't. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, coming out of the garage, it would be a right turn only to come down Counley. There is actually an opening here um right at the uh the main entrance to the Elks Club. So, you would have the opportunity to maybe make a you know U-turn there as well. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Commissioner G. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Andy, maybe we can start by answering a couple of the questions that the public commenter had. I think the first one was is the or the existing buildings, the Starbucks, those buildings, they're going away, right? Yeah, that's correct. Yes. Okay. Um, noise. Did you analyze noise? We did analyze noise as part of our due diligence. We did not submit that to the city. It's not a requirement. Um but essentially, you know, we took that into consideration as we were designing this. The main activities of this um that would have kind of outdoor noise generation really is this kind of park element um that's up front here that's oriented towards Kitsky and Virginia um towards you know the rest of the commercial shopping centers. Um the residential which is to the kind of northwest and west um is would be kind of adjacent to the parking garage. So essentially our traffic study looked at really just traffic noise and you already kind of have that in the area. So it was it was not something that was of concern quite frankly. Okay. Can you flip forward one slide? Uh maybe one more. That one. Yeah. So you indicated and and Brooke indicated that you're proposing 18% landscaping which is over the 10% code requirement. um which is great. The image here is showing street trees um within the surface parking area. Is that something that is you're actually proposing to to implement per this this landscape plan that's shown here? Yes. So that would be um per code. So parking lot trees provided per code to get the the essentially there's canopy st spacing requirements. you have to have a tree I think within 75 ft of every parking space. So the trees around the edge as well as you know sprinkled in the middle of the parking field there would would accommodate for that. So we are proposing to park per or sorry landscape per code. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I guess Andy, question for you. Um, with respect to the hotel room situation, I understand the number of rooms and the rationale behind it. Um, but I guess I also have a a a question in terms of the size of the the gaming floor. Um, and I'm not going to speak to the the how the ratio works, but it seems as though the intent of that ratio is to make sure that, you know, there's a correlation between gaming activities and hotel rooms and and certainly, you know, we're we're looking at the activity next door. Is there um is a part of this design, is there the potential for additional hotel rooms on this property in the future? Um short answer, yes. So, starting out with the 201 hotel rooms and then um kind of proving out that concept. Um, you I didn't say in my presentation, but essentially, you know, this would be the first groundup casino, uh, hotel casino resort built in the city of Reno since, I believe, 1997 when the Silver Legacy was built. Um, so, you know, there's been expansions obviously to, you know, like Peppermill or Atlantis over those times, but this would be the first ground up. And so that 201 hotel hotel rooms would be sort of the initial phase and then we would ultimately have to come back for um additional amendment to the conditional use permit or additional use permit in the future um to expand that. And yes, there would be opportunities. So we're looking at you know potentially all this purple area is back of house. So potentially going above that back of house or the ballroom uh with additional rooms in the future could could be something. Okay. So there is at least there's there's thought going on as a part of the initial planning for potential expansion just and again knowing what we've seen development here for the past 20 years with existing properties expanding and how that's being done that is part of the consideration. It yes it is. Okay. Um and then I have a question actually for Brooke. Thank you Andy. Appreciate that. So um Brooke, it wasn't up in your presentation. It was actually in the applicant's presentation, but they did a a nice comparison of um both Peppermill and the Atlantis with respect to their towers in relationship to um residential areas. It seems to me that Peppermill for sure, but potentially Atlantis 2, there are some um not noise requirements, but some lighting requirements like the the west side of the Peppermill Tower as it was presented um is not lit, at least at night, to the level that the east side is. And I guess my question is that seems like something that would have been a requirement placed on it by the city rather than anything in the design. So um certainly the orientation and the distance is different here. But was there um discussion or is there some um I guess not you know condition or code requirement that would limit say you know the lighting of that element facing towards the west or to the the u area of of residential. Sure. So they will have to submit a lighting plan with their final plan now. And I think as stated, it's the orientation of the building really is what we're seeing. So we're seeing minor headlights. Those aren't coming directly out as we're leaving the garage. The garage will be shielded. Additionally, you know, we'll have lighting in that garage, but that will be to a safety level. We'll have to meet the light. We have overspill. We also have a roadway there, too. So, you have that sort of uh distance between that. We're seeing the the loading unloading areas. So, at night, we'd anticipate those would have a a lower turnover as we're seeing those deliveries and some of that during the day. that would be lit to a a level of safety not impacting the the adjacent properties. Um, additionally, we're seeing really where we we'd see those larger impacts. Our signages are all out towards our main streets where we're seeing higher commercial, the convention center, some of those things that we wouldn't really anticipate an impact with those light levels. So, it's really back in that corner, small little section of multifamily. And because of that orientation with the additionally there's landscaping that we'll see along the back of that kind of screening both the loading area and the parking thing. So we don't anticipate that we would see uh really much of a lighting impact nor noise impact related to that. Okay. And I appreciate that. I guess maybe where I was going and that that makes sense and I appreciate that. I guess the question I was thinking is more along the lines of you know we saw sort of the the first page of the presentation from the applicant and you know you have the whole tower and the tower is lit up. Yes. And I guess what my point is is the peppermill the back side of the tower is not lit up. The front side of the tower is but the back side is not. Oh yeah yeah I understand. That's where the I get the light levels everywhere else and I appreciate that from a code standpoint. I'm just that that to not have, you know, uplighting and wall washing and everything on that side. I just want to know if that was something that was analyzed at a at a staff level. You know, we the tower itself and the hotel tower. Now, they they are allowed their signage and and the signage is very liberal within that gaming. Um, I think we'd still look at those lighting levels and how that would, you know, the lighting plan would have to demonstrate that they're not offspilling and so we'd have shielding or more directed lighting. So, as far as the tower may be lit, but that um impacting neighboring properties would have to be shielded and and done for our code. We didn't um specifically analyze that in our analysis. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I have one more question if that's okay. Um, one of the the elements in this is a cuts and fills. Correct. um that wasn't part of anybody's presentation. Could you just do a quick walk through on exactly what we're looking at as a part of that in this? Sure. So, the or ditch currently runs through that vacant part of the site up in the northeast portion of the thing or of the the site there. Um they are proposing to pipe that and relocate that. So, that'll get relocated uh be underground. They'll establish easements over that. large part of that cut and fill. One, we have a large building format, right? Over even with a small grade, you still are going to have grades within that, but the major portion of the grading is related to the filling in of that or ditch after it is rel uh relocated. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any discussion? Mr. down. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a a couple comments. I think um I you know, I'm really happy to see a number of elements of this project. Um the pedestrian orientation with uh including the crossing across Virginia Street, I think is excellent. Um with the signalized intersection, it provides that connectivity to the convention center and back. Um I think that the proposed landscaping uh and just you know that surface pedestrian environment will be very positive feature. Great to see the electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Um the asurances about the landscape plan going above and beyond code requirement. Um, you know, this is a an infill project which really ticks the a huge box for master plan and I think that the um the project does a really good job of incorporating a lot of elements into this that we're looking for from that master plan perspective um in putting it into a a proposed site plan. So, I just want to uh compliment the the project designer and and team on that. Thank you, Commissioner Armstrong. Uh, thank you, Commissioner Belton. Sorry, Chair Belto. Uh, I'd just like to address Peter's comments. I couldn't agree more. Um, I also want to give credit to the applicant for really leaning in with the neighborhood. Seems like they kind of went above and beyond in terms of having a virtual um meeting, you know, ahead of the NAP meetings. Uh, I don't feel like we see that as often, maybe as we should. And so I think it's it's positive that they really leaned in with the community. Um, with respect to the design, I think it's really unique. They had mentioned there hadn't been casino developments ground up since like 1997. And uh, this is not kind of the typical casino development that we see here. There's a lot of great outdoor features, a lot of modern features. I agree with the electric vehicle charging. Um, I think it'll be a really nice space once completed. So, just wanted to make those comments. Thank you, Commissioner Draculich. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Draculich. Uh yeah, ditto to what you gentlemen have said, it looks like a great project and notably for our discussion, I would be in support of the modification number two to this 36 months. Mr. Johnson, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um just one thing I wanted to touch on based on my questions. When this came, the last time this came before us, um the project did not include hotel rooms. Um, and I was on the record at the time that I didn't support it without the hotel rooms, even with the the relocation and the conditions that they were allowed to do it for. Um, the fact that this has hotel rooms, alleviates that initial concern. Um, and I understand the situation that we have with the reduced number of hotel rooms over what is there. Um, in both what I heard tonight, um, and in looking at the plan, uh, I do believe that it is possible to get additional hotel rooms on this site to exceed even what we would be requiring by code, even if it's not part of what's here. But the fact that this initial phase includes those 200 plus hotel rooms, uh, allows me to make, you know, that that one thing, that one thing I couldn't get over the last time it came before us. So, um, I just wanted to get that out there since I did sit here when the last one came through, uh, and had those concerns. So, I just appreciate the fact that that has been addressed as a part of this. So, um, thank you. Great. Thank you for your comments with that. Uh, do we have a motion? I can follow up with that since I was the last one to speak. So, if that is, uh, if that's acceptable. So, um, case of LDC 23-000030. Um the um based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions listed in the staff report, including the addition of condition number 15 as presented and the modification of condition number two uh for the time extension to 36 months. And with that, I can make all of the findings. Great. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Dracula. I second. He beat you to it. I was on I was it was on. Okay. Okay, we have a motion to second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Great. Thank you so much for this project and bringing it forward. Good luck. Thank you. What do you all spirit? You might need a break. You need a break. Yeah. Okay. 45 minutes. Just questioning. Great. Okay. Okay, we'll move on to uh item number 5.3, which is case number uh LDC23-000039, Reno Steed Corridor Joint Plan Master Plan. Grace, do we have a presentation? Yes. Good evening, commissioners. Grace McAdin, senior management analyst of development services here to discuss the official sun setting of the Reno Steed Corridor joint plan. So to start off before I get into my presentation, I would like to point out that state law only allows for a joint plan designated by regional planning. So we'll get into detail um on this later, but since Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency got rid of this joint planning area in 2019, this plan is no longer in effect. So just keep that in mind as we move forward. So now I would like to discuss kind of what the Reno Steor Joint Plan was. So from a high level, it was an agreement between Wo County and the city of Reno to help guide future growth and development in the north valleys for a 20-year period. And this was established in 1996 by Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning. So the area is largely or all within Ward 4 and it's generally located between Red Rock and Golden Valley. So the document established master plan designations for each parcel within this boundary and any changes were required to go before the county and the city for a joint hearing. So during the 2019 Truckucky Mejo's regional planning agency's uh joint plan update or sorry the regional plan update uh this plan was discussed and it was recommended to sunset the plan. So the policies within this plan were adopted by respective jurisdictions master plans and so this plan really became duplicative and unnecessary. So examples of some of these policies include protection of drainageways, wetlands and stream environments, requirements for public noticing, undergrounding for utilities, and they found that all of our master plans really went above and beyond what was already within this plan. So today we're requesting to officially sunset the Reno Steed corridor joint plan. So Truckucky Meadows Regional got rid of this got rid of this plan in 2019. Washoke County got rid of the plan in 2020 and we're kind of last to do so. So on your map, we'll get into some closer ups and we'll describe kind of what those colors are, but generally um it gives you an idea of what we're trying to do here. So the map on your top is what we see today and everything within those stripes is within the Reno Stead Quarter joint plan. And then on the bottom you'll see kind of closer to what we're used to and those are uh each parcel kind of has its own master plan designation or each area you know residential commercial has its own color. So originally the Renoide corridor joint plan proposed the following land use plan. This map shows the original intention for growth in our areas. So I'd like to point out a few things on this map. This gray area was envisioned in 1990 to really be an industrial area. Then you see this light green area. This is where we saw some more significant slopes and natural features and they wanted to see some low impact development or less impactful development in these areas. And then you'll see these darker pink areas and these were intended really to be some commercial corridors. And that's really where we'll see kind of this the Shell station up here um and some of your grocery stores and uh Walmart down here. And then this this green is the North Valley's Park. So that makes sense. So as stated before, this is what our master plan currently looks like. So everything in these blue and white stripes will be replaced with our current master plan designations. And this will really bring this area into conformance by officially sunsetting a plan that no longer exists and replacing it with a master plan that can really provide better guidance for staff and applicants for future growth in this area. So here's what's proposed and as you can see it's really pretty close to what was originally proposed with a few minor changes based on what's developed in 1990s. So the dark pink is still suburban mixed use and I've called out some you know the Smith's Grocery Outlet. We still see this North Valley's park area right here. Um, and then we see suburban mixed use up here as well with that shell station. We still see these light green areas, unincorporated transition or or large lot residential where we'll see one one house for every couple acres. Um, we've seen some expansion of these industrial areas and that's really to just match what's already there. So, anything that's been entitled, we're not proposing to change any um any zoning or or uh change anybody's ability to develop. This is really just matching what's already there, what's already been entitled. So for this case, we did kind of some extensive public outreach. We sent out a courtesy notice and a legal notice, which is standard. Our courtesy notice was sent out in January, and this was to encourage recipients to participate in our neighborhood meetings we hosted. Uh these notices were sent out to not only everyone within the Reno Steer boundary, but also everyone within 750 ft of this boundary. This ended up being about 6,000 people. We held a neighborhood meeting at O'Brien Middle School on February 6th where seven people attended. Um some of the questions were really more misunderstandings of um thinking it was development, new development or changes being made. So once we kind of helped answer those questions, we didn't really see many concerns. We also attended the Ward 4 neighborhood advisory meeting on February 16th. And then a whole separate web page was created with detailed information and interactive maps. So somebody would get these postcards in the mail. It would come with a link. They could click on the link and check in their address, see if they're affected and what the master plan is intended to be. So in conclusion, I would like to reiterate this will not change anyone's zoning. This is simply applying a master plan to an area that does not currently have an an effective master plan. Um, this will not change anybody's ability to develop their property as well. So, it's simply no changes are being made and like I said before because state law only gives regional planning the ability to designate these joint plans. It's it's no longer in effect anyways. So, we have to make sure we have current master plan designations on these parcels. These are the findings and the analysis for staff to be able to make these findings. Here is the recommended motion and I'm available for questions. Thank you. We'll come back to the commission for disclosures and start with Commissioner Gower. Thank you. Um I viewed email correspondents. Uh Commissioner Munoz, same disclosures. Commissioner Armstrong, same disclosures. Commissioner Draculich, same disclosures. Commissioner Johnson, same disclosures. Commissioner Valto, same disclosures. We'll open up public comment. Uh, do we have any request to speak forms? We did not receive any request to speak forms. We did receive correspondence which was forwarded to the planning commission and entered into the record. And we also have a voicemail to play. Did you want to begin with that? Yes please. My name is Walter Williamson. My phone number is 775-2873900. I live at 8130 Blackfoot Way, Reno, Nevada 89506. And I have received an LDC23-000039 Reno's Dead Quarter Joint Plane Master A Plan Amendment. I have no idea what this means and I want to know how it affects me. Please have somebody give me a call and explain this to me. Thank you very much for your time. You have a wonderful day. Bye-bye. Okay. Thank you. Would anyone in the public like to speak on this item? Hi, my name's Christine Gilbert and um I pretty much have like the same question of that voice message that was just left, but you guys can't answer any questions. So, I guess Grace would be the one I'd probably have to talk to, right? Okay. Hi, how are you? I saw you in at O'Brien. Um, so I mean, my biggest concern is probably what everybody talks about is traffic. So, I know I get three minutes. Okay. So, traffic is probably the biggest concern. That last snowstorm we had like yesterday, 40 minutes to get off of North Virginia Street. I mean, we're talking 30 minutes just to get to Golden Valley Road from Lemon Drive. I mean, the bottleneck and the traffic is outrageous. And just to put anything in, even though all the zoning was already done, I really think the roads were there before the zoning and we need more roads because we definitely, you know, right, we're growing. Yeah, we're getting bigger, sure, but you know, you got to build these roads a lot wider. We're in a commercial property with tons of warehouses around us. Semis are everywhere. It's very dangerous. I know I only got a minute, but um we really need more um extended roads on 395 North, as everybody probably knows. You guys probably live out there. Uh North Virginia Street is just one little accident and then everybody goes to North Virginia and then we got another bottleneck and it's just like crazy. You just can't not get out. And you know, we're all energy conservative and we want to conserve energy. We don't need to be sitting in our cars waiting for to move that traffic through. So, you know, I'm all for building. I'm all for all that. I grew up in Vegas. I know what all that building looks like. But I'll tell you, when they build, as everybody knows, we've all been to Vegas. They put the highways in and then they kind of work out, but they make sure they get that infrastructure in first. And I kind of think the planning I think we needed that done a little bit before we went to all the warehousing. So that's my two cents and I'll feel that. Thank you for your comments. Would anyone else in the public like to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment. Uh come back to the commission for questions. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair Grace. So just to make sure that I'm I think I understand this. So basically there is a zoning on all of these parcels. There is a city of Reno zoning that indicates whether it's single family, commercial, mixed use, um parks, greenway, open space, all of that zoning exists. However, there's the layer above that which is the master plan designation. And right now that master plan designation is tied to an outdated plan. Correct. Okay. So then this is not changing anybody's zoning. So as you just to clarify, anything that you could have done prior to this on that parcel, you can continue to do. What this is doing is changing the master plan overlay to match what the underlying zoning already is. Exactly. Okay. And so it's um any future projects on any of these parcels would be subject to the same condition, same allowable uses, same conditions that they currently have. Um this doesn't change that. So if somebody is zoned residential, they can continue to build residential. If somebody is zoned commercial, they have all those opportunities. This is just a cleanup. Exactly. Okay. Uh thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Gower. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Grace, you you mentioned in your staff report that Wo County recently sunseted this as well. So in I mean one of the one of the benefits in my opinion of the Reno corridor joint plan was that it promoted collaboration between the city of Reno and Wo County under that regional umbrella. Um but in addition to regional planning getting rid of it as part of their update, Wo County suns setting in in 2020. So City of Reno is kind of the last one to do this. Right. So it's it's it's gone. We're we're just it's like a formality here, right? Yes. And you've seen projects come before you with this master plan designation and there's no joint hearing because it's no longer in effect. Yeah. And Wo County is not doing anything that, you know, City of Reno is not able to do anymore. They they've gotten rid of it also. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Discussion, Commissioner Munoz. Uh, thank you, Commissioner Ma. I just want to get on the record. Um, we have a as as a whole, we have approved uh multiple uh residential um projects up there and we have people continuing to show up um which this doesn't have to do with any of that but with concern. So, I just want to get on the record that people are concerned of the growth up there. People are in anguish right now over what we're dealing with and I just want to make sure that we recognize they are here. That's the reason why they're here. Uh we're seeing it every single time something comes up in Ward 4 and I I want to praise and hope that the uh cities and the planners continue to recognize that um as you have lately. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Munoz. Do we have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion. Please. Um, case number LDC23-000039 [Music] Reno said corridor joint plan master plan amendment based upon compliance with the applicable findings. I recommend that city council approve the master plan amendment. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Armstrong. I'll second you to it. Uh, we have a motion to second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. Uh we're now going to move back to agenda item 4.1, which is the or item four, which is the planning commission bylaws. Uh 4.1 is a staff report for possible action discussing potential approval of the revised bylaws of the city of Reno Planning Commission subject to city council adoption. And how lucky are we to see Jason on this side of the good evening commissioners. Pleasure being on the other side and thank you Angela. Um tonight I'm before you to talk about the planning commission bylaws discussion and potential potential revision. Um this has uh come about from a number of changes I would say culturally as well as demand of the city um with events like COVID and other things occurring. So, uh, the proposed changes before you tonight are really administrative in nature. Um, I'm going to walk through, it's a four slide presentation, fairly quick. Um, but it just goes through and explains the what, why, and how. So, as far as a brief overview of what needs to be updated, um terminology, um this specifically is with title 18 updates. This is in regards to labeling the administrator. Um this is replacing the community development director terminology. Um, additionally, uh, with the rebranding of the development services department, um, updates to the NRS sections, specifically the ethics chapter, and, um, adding potentially flexible locations for meetings of future commission meetings, uh, specifically in emergency situations. Uh, this has come about from emergency events or CO 19 or other things that have occurred in the last couple years. Additionally, um the one I guess major change as part of this proposal is to solidify what we're currently doing in practice and that's the uh new tech policy uh to include video conferencing um specifically what we use Zoom. So essentially why do we need the bylaws updated and what are the reason for bylaws? Well, bylaws really give us structure and protocol for these meetings. And so, this sets procedures forward and um with the changing needs of the city and residents and I'd say the cultural changes again because of CO 19 and other recent events um this allows for flexibility in the future. Um updating updating uh changing organizations and laws. Um, I think NRS or uh Nevada revised statute is always going to be constantly changing. So, we want to stay current on that. And again, that's why we've updated that to include um all of that ethics section and like I just mentioned the tech policy. So, as far as kind of the process on how bylaws are updated, per the current bylaws, notification in written form is to be given to the commissioners 10 days in advance. Um staff is here presenting before your commission and uh the planning commission decision uh on bylaws um after it's decided tonight if it is proposed to adopt the staff recommended administrative changes um that will go to city council for recommendation and uh the city council uh basically solidifies that approving and adopting those bylaws. So that's kind of the next steps. And with that, I have the proposed motion on your screen and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I don't think we need disclosures. No. Does anyone on the commission have any disclosures? Okay. Um, we'll open up public comment. Do we have any request to speak forms? We do not have any request to speak forms, correspondence, or voicemails. And we don't have anyone via Zoom either. Perfect. We also have no one in the audience in person, so we'll close public comment. Uh come back to the commission for questions. Commissioner Gallow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jason, the only question I have is in section seven where you have the proposed language regarding video conferencing. In that second paragraph, you referenced um a state of emergency um preventing inerson attendance. So that's when kind of a video platform would be used for an entire planning commission. I'm trying to think of another scenario other than like a state of emergency that would um result in a virtual planning commission, but I didn't know if the city wanted to be, you know, essentially not boxed in, but you know, limited to only a situation where there's a state of emergency when you have the opportunity to have a virtual meeting. That's it. I think there's flexibility written into that paragraph that allows for uh the chair to communicate over to city staff to allow uh virtual attendance in specific circumstances that would be outside of a emergency event. Okay. I I don't read it that way. And to me it says if there's a state of emergency then you can video conference. But if if you think that there's flexibility that's when when I when I say there's flexibility it's the paragraph directly above it that I'm referring to that would address that situation as opposed to states of emergency if there's other circumstances. Well, I think right so the the first paragraph is referring to individual participation in a meeting. So like we do now where sometimes commissioners zoom into a an in-person meeting. I read the second paragraph as being the whole meeting would be held virtually like they were during COVID. So I my point is are there other circumstances besides a COVID scenario again where the city would need to have the option to do an in-person meeting? I mean maybe city chamber maybe chambers are under construction and you can't even though you have this new language you can't get something over at the county or someone else somewhere else and like it just makes sense to have a virtual meeting. I just I'm trying to look out for staff. So you have the flexibility in the bylaws so you're not painted into a corner of like oh our bylaws say it has to be a state of emergency. Um so we we have to figure out somewhere to have an inerson meeting. Well in staff's opinion I think that par that first paragraph does address that. But I also think there's other um amendments in here that allow for uh both staff and the chair to come up with a suitable location. And I would even go to the extent to say that could be virtual. So, okay. If you're good, I'm good. Commissioner Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just, um, I guess maybe piggybacking on that a little bit, broader context. Um, you mentioned how this has been brought up as kind of a result of these situations. I guess my question is are are we one of you know is this bylaws thing being looked at kind of across the board for all the meetings? I mean, is there some standard language that we're coming up with here from a video conferencing standpoint that the city is kind of looking sort of um globally with respect to all of our meetings to apply this to or or are we sort of I don't want to say test case, but is this something that's maybe being looked at all the way across the city? Uh, thank you for your question. Um this is being addressed um I believe to all boards and commissions um but because of the nature of the planning commission and the specific law uh surrounding that this is special in this nature. So these edits um were provided um to uh staff that's working on those other issues. But at this time this is specific to planning commission. Okay. And I I I knew that was what we were looking at. It was just kind of a question. And then I I just had there was something that caught my eye and because it was changed um and I started to think about how staff interprets this when you're putting the agenda together and it was basically under article six talking about the consideration of agenda items. Um and and I saw that it it basically talks about you know applicant presentation and then opponent presentation as a part of all of that. And I would have glanced over it, but it kind of changed to opponents, proponents, and other members of the public may make presentation. And I guess I'm just I just want to understand is that is there somewhere else because that always seems to fall under public comment here. We have a pretty set approach from an agenda standpoint of an applicant presentation and a staff presentation and public comment. Is that staff's interpretation of what this is or is there something else that someone could come back because we've heard this before where people have said, "Hey, they have 15 minutes. Why don't I get 15 minutes because it's, you know, under this scenario?" I'm I'm just I'm again trying to understand are we you know are we down to an interpretation here or is this something that is potentially at odds with the way we've been doing the threeminut public comment. Thank you for the question. That's just to make the public comment period more inclusive and include all parties. Um it's uh in staff's opinion that's the threeminut time period. Okay. Okay. So, so that's it's meant to address uh whoever wants to speak at the public hearing part. Okay. I just And so then I guess to that standpoint, it is a little confusing to me that you know there is a pretty extensive process with disclosures and everything else for public comment in all of these public meetings and that doesn't seem to be translated to the direction that's being provided in the bylaws. So, just as a as again I think to Commissioner Gower's point, there seems to be some, you know, things that we've run into that this might be a little different. So, but thank you for the question or answer. I appreciate where you're going with that. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple questions for you, Jason. So, um, are the bylaws something that we will be able to address in the coming months or in the next 6 months or a year if we wanted to address other issues in these bylaws? So, the proposal for you tonight is administrative in nature. And so, um, staff just wants to be very clear that was kind of the purpose to update with the current practices and and such as presented. Um but potentially in the future if the commission was interested they could come back and propose additional changes to those bylaws. Yeah. What would the process be to make that request for the agenda? Is there some time period? Is it just we request it go on the agenda? So that's where uh the commission could a commission member could request and have it placed on the agenda and then staff would start the process and go through a similar process like we did with this process. So, it would come back before the planning commission as a discussion item and potential approval and then go on to city council for adoption. Okay. Um, as far as the the video conferencing uh section, I'm a little concerned that in the event there's an extenduating circumstance that you don't become aware of until the day of, you would have no way to zoom in under the language. That's a concern I have with this language. But if if we have the opportunity to potentially revise it in the future, I might be less concerned. Do you think this language precludes someone uh who has an extenduating circumstance that comes up day of the meeting from zooming into the meeting? Um, as far as the language that was added, we tried to be as flexible as possible with these situations that we've recently experienced. So that's why you see not only video conferencing but the telephonic in there as well to address some of those issues. Um for the most part this is setting um setting rules and procedures. So staff is always available to try to make it work if we have failures in technology or other things. So but one of those recent things that we've done over the last couple years is have IT staff available at every meeting. So, for the most part, we see that we've had access or we've been able to connect people from remote locations, but yes, I do see your point. If offsite there's some circumstance and people are not able to remotely log in, what do we do in those situations? So, in that situation, we'd still need still need a quorum to proceed with the meeting. I think I asked my question poorly, so let me try to rephrase it. Um so the language says uh if the chair allows a member to attend via video conference then the chair shall notify the administrator or designate at the earliest opportunity but not later than 5:00 p.m. on the day prior to the meeting. So what does a commissioner do if on the day of the meeting they realize there's an extenduating extenduating circumstance that prevents them from attending in person? That's where I think staff would do their best to make it happen in that circumstance to allow that um allow that commissioner to log in remotely or via Zoom. But this is really meant to create procedures so and have a process in place and it mirrors the similar process that's already written into the bylaws as far as kind of notifying an administrator that existing language already exists there in general. So and then does the language about uh the chair approving whether there's an extenduating circumstance already exist in the bylaws or is that new? That's that's new. So, and that that would allow a degree of flexibility depending on the circumstance cuz that's really good while I'm the chair, but concerning while I'm not the chair. Um, I just wanted to point that out that that's uh and it's really it was really meant to address situations like the mystery snowstorm that the northern part of the area just received this week. So, things like that. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Oh please. Am I on? Yep. Angela Fouse, assistant director for the record. So, a couple things too with today. I mean, I've I've heard some comments about maybe needing some additional clarity. Um, you have a couple options. You can propose some language as part of your recommendation that then goes to council. Another option, um, Jayce can can take back your feedback and maybe make some of these changes and then bring them back to planning commission at another time to make sure that what you are approving you are comfortable with. Thank you. Do you have Please, Commissioner Ger. Well, based on the comments, I I can suggest three changes. Um, Mr. Chair, I think your your comments in section seven regarding the um notification day of versus day prior is a good point. I don't know an appropriate time. Maybe noon the day of or I think 5:00 PM day of might be a little bit late, but I think the day of is appropriate because I've been in that situation, too. Um so I think changing removing day prior um to Commissioner Johnson's point I think in section article six section two number five um Jason having starting out that sentence with during the open public comment period opponents and then just continue Right. And then sorry, jumping back up to section seven in that second paragraph. As long as we're proposing changes, um I really do think that you would want the flexibility should a state of emergency be declared by the city, state, or federal government or other unforeseen circumstance that prevents in-person attendance. So, it just gives you a little bit more flexibility there. Those are my proposed changes based on the comments. I have two comments based on what you've suggested. I think um so section seven I I like Jason's explanation of trying to create a process. Um would you be open to maybe changing the language to not say it must be not later than 5:00 p.m. but it should be not later than 5:00 p.m. the day of. So it's like aspirational. I mean, I I get that doesn't create a clear process, but it kind of says that that's what you should be doing, but sometimes you can't do what you should. So, changing shall to should. Uh, so it would say if a if the chair allows a member to attend via video conference, the chair shall notify the administrator design or the Yeah, the chair should wait. Yeah, the chair should notify the administrator design at the earliest opportunity. How about send it right there? Would Oh, okay. Yeah, I like that. Do you have thoughts on that, Jason? Mr. Chair, can I make I I actually do have my my question and I'm maybe I'm looking at sort of the protocol that we've had in the past. Typically, when a member is not able to attend, they're not contacting the chair. They're contacting the administrator or the administrative representative. So, I guess that's that's the question I have about the language that you're you know, our meetings are scheduled and the you know, attendance at the meetings is somewhat coordinated through the administrator rather than the chair. And I'm not sure how that if that is different. I think you'd mentioned there was some existing language already in here. uh with respect to attendance and who gets gets notified. But if we're looking at sort of how this is working in reality, especially with a rotating chair and the potential I mean we all I think everybody knows how to contact the administrator being able to contact the chair is maybe less of a easy thing to do. Um the structure of the current bylaws uh sets up communication between the administrator or designate which I would be the designate um and uh the chair. So that process is established for all communication and um that's that's where that language comes from. Now, in practice, our our administrative staff reaches out to make sure when we have certain items or other things that we're going to have a quorum or or make sure that we have a certain amount of uh people at meetings. So, that that practice will probably still happen and still exist. But that's just from staff's perspective. That's why we ask for that day notification so that we can plan if we have situations outside of our our control on that. So, Mr. Chair, if I may, I was just looking right below it talks about in section 7, the part that we're not really modifying, it does indicate that the commissioner unable to attend shall notify the administrator at the earliest opportunity. So the language within that same section but not being modified, the notification is to the administrator, not to the chair. So I guess I would just be looking for some consistency there. If we're going to change it to chair above, then we need to change it to chair down below or keep it administrator above to match the notification requirement below. And that's that's the part I was referring to earlier to match up. So staff would be satisfied as long as that matches as you just said between those two different paragraphs. So words so you're the what I was referring to the first proposed section on video conferencing um with that um third paragraph of section seven. So you would you would modify a par the first paragraph in section section seven to mirror the requirements of the third paragraph in so far as notice is given to the administrator not to the chair. So that would that that's correct. Okay. And then would the administrator determine whether there was an extenduating circumstance? If the commission wishes to do that, we could. Mr. Chairman, can I suggest please? So suggestion is to keep section seven starting with each commissioner. Make that the first paragraph. Take the new language video conferencing. Make that the second paragraph and end that paragraph at attend in person and leave off the whole last part about allowing video conference and then continue into the third paragraph or or sorry to keep keep ended after at earliest opportunity. So you would have you frame it with the notification about alerting the administrator and then you go into video conferencing is an alternative and then the third paragraph is state of emergency situation that may help with the the flow and the consistency there. Yeah. Suggestion. I like that. And I like that. To build off of it, I would suggest mirroring some of the language in the each commissioner who is unable to attend in the video conferencing language. So each commissioner who requires video conferencing should notify the administrator at the earliest opportunity. I'm a little concerned with the exigent circumstances just because I kind of think we're all adults and we can decide what is an exigent circumstance. I agree. Yeah. Is that Jason? Is that good enough direction? Yeah, that's good enough direction. And I believe I understand the edits. Um, so, um, removing the but not later than 5 PM on the day prior to the date of the meeting and then switching the order of the paragraphs, taking that third paragraph and making that the first and then mirroring that language um, over to the administrator rather than the chair. Yep. and removing the test for unextenduating circumstance as a requirement for video conferencing. I believe that's does anyone disagree with that? I don't want to speak forever reason. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out that even in the the third paragraph there, the one that we're moving up, it has the same language about notification by 5:00 p.m. the day prior. Oh, good point. So, if the recommendation is to notify at the earliest convenience, that would be consistent through both in person and video conference in this reconfiguration. I kind of I think there's a difference in my mind because if if you can appear by Zoom, you can still vote if you're not so so and I agree. So if you're not able to attend at all, that notification requirement 5:00 p.m. the day prior would stay is what we're Okay. And that's I just wanted that on noted that that's in there and if we want to keep that in there for non-attendance, that's good. And then change to earliest convenience if you're going to switch to video conference. Yeah, I would I would support that approach. So to be clear, that's removing but not later than 5:00 PM on the day prior to the date of noticing in the video conferencing paragraph, but keeping in the full absence in the original paragraph or what's paragraph three right now in the report? That is that is what I'm recommending and what I'm hearing from fellow commissioners. Understood. Yeah. I would just hate for us to have to cancel a meeting because a person didn't notify with sufficient time that they had to appear by Zoom and then we didn't have a quorum or something like that. That would be a concern. So the other part, section seven, that second paragraph, which will now be the third paragraph. Um, the way you've phrased it, who determines whether there's or commissioner G, who determines whether there's an unforeseen circumstance that prevents attendance. Good point. I don't know. Is it a chair in coordination with the administrator or I just think there's someone should probably determine that Hel are you just trying to clarify if you're going to attend by Zoom that you need an excuse? No, this the state of emergency uh it clearly says it has to be declared by one of the three entities. Uh if we add it in or other unforeseen circumstance and don't identify who could determine there was an unforeseen circumstance, we could add as determined by the administrator. And as an example, when we had the riots at city hall, that would be an unforeseen circumstance where we don't want you here. Um or a flood, right? If we had a flash flood and we had to shut down city hall for whatever reason, that would be an unforeseen circumstance. So I I do think there are other things that maybe we we we can't anticipate knowing what we know, but there there will be times when we just need to have a meeting that's that's virtual. So I I do think that language makes sense to just add um or other unforeseen circumstances or reasons, whatever you came up with, as determined by the administrator. Yeah. Yeah. Good, good call. And then I like the addition to article 6 section two number five on board with that as well. Do we have any more comments or a motion? So Mr. Chair, just to follow up on Angela's comment, are we that the motion that I would be willing to make on this is that I would move to recommend this be adopted with the revisions as discussed. I don't see a need for it to come back to us with those revisions. So, that would be I guess I would move to approve the revised planning commission bylaws, recommend the city council approve them, and adopt the same planning commission bylaws as presented in the staff report and modified during our discussion this evening. That would be my motion. Mr. G, second. Great. Motion in a second. All those in favor? I I Any oppos? Okay, the motion carries. Uh thank you Jason. Thank you commissioners. Okay we'll move to agenda item number six. Truckucky meadows regional planning liaison report. I don't believe there was a meeting since our last meeting. So there is nothing to report. There's a meeting next Thursday. Perfect. Uh agenda item number seven staff announcements. Angela Fouse, assistant director. Two staff announcements for you. I I know at one previous meeting there was a request for information on the number of building permits by ward and I believe Jason let you know we we don't have that data um segregated by ward. We do have some new information that we are storing on our website. So I will send you all a link just kind of great information for you to know. We now have an updated tally on a month-by-month basis of the building permits that we review. So, this is commercial, uh, residential, multif family broken down. Again, not by ward, but just so you can kind of track where development is coming in in terms of the number of building permits. Just kind of good information for you guys to to have whenever you're interested in in knowing. And then secondly, update on the zoning code update. So we have kind of two pieces happening. One is the the code cleanup. We have now over 400 items that we need to fix with our existing code. So staff is working on that. And then separate from that, we have hired a consultant to help us with three key sections. One is our sign ordinance. We're asking them to look at what is currently in our sign ordinance. Um find things that maybe don't match with federal regulations on signs. Signs are one of those categories that jurisdictions get sued quite a bit on, including the city of Reno. So, we want to make sure that our ordinance is up to regulations outside of Reno. Um, so we're having them look at our sign ordinance and telecommunications. This is cell towers. Again, not something you guys typically see, but something as a city we do a lot of reviews for cell towers and our ordinance is not up to date again with federal regulations. So, we're asking them to take a look at that. And then the third piece is related to appeals. So, our our ordinance currently is written um talks about who has standing, who has the right to appeal and who doesn't, what it actually needs more clarification on those types of things. So, we've asked them just to take a look for kind of best practices. What do other jurisdictions have in their zoning code in terms of those topics? And then, so they'll they'll come back to us with some recommendations. So over the next probably six or seven months, we're going to be doing some outreach. So the stakeholder outreach process. Um same with the zoning code update. We're going to do a robust outreach process. We are creating a separate web page on our website. So as soon as that's up and running, I'll forward you all the link where you can sign up to get information. You can just see what's out there, what we're working on, when our meetings are. So know that I'm actually very very excited to say we are moving this forward and you guys will be a big part of that. We'll be holding separate workshops for you guys and kind of breaking it out into pieces. We won't make you stay here till midnight just talking about zoning. I know tough but I am excited that we are moving that forward and we hope to have something adopted by winter of 2024 in all of those categories. Great. Any questions on any of that? Thank you. Okay. Uh commission agenda item number eight, commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. Okay. Close that item. We'll go to public comment. We'll open public comment. Do we have any request to speak forms? We don't have any request to speak forms, correspondence, or voicemails. Great. Uh seeing no one in the audience, we'll close public comment. and entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I Okay, have a nice night.