all right thank you all for coming to the regular meeting of the Reno City Planning Commission today's date is Wednesday August 7th and it is 6: p.m. we'll start it off with the Pledge of Allegiance commissioner RoR Meer you're here in person let's do it flag United States stands all right closing item one moving to item two roll call Michelle please or Heather Harris Armstrong here Manny Perera here Carrie rer here Alex fto Sylvia villan NOA here JD draulic here we have a quorum excellent closing item two moving to item three public comment this is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment uh Michelle I do have a request to speak for it says general public comment or was this for a specific item no it's for general public comment but let me read this into the record please okay members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the zoom link provided on the agenda specific specifically https colon links. reno.gov sl4 the number four B WJ yq9 it should be noted for those in the audience that commenter to be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to 3 minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter not agendized for possible action on today's agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded 3 minutes if you are an attendee in the zoom meeting and would like to make public comment now please raise your hand at this time lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued to the by the presiding officers if there is disrupted behavior and you will be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues with that we did receive um comments that were General in nature those were forwarded to the Planning Commission and have been entered into the record and then you have a request to speak for and I don't believe we have anybody on Zoom or oh we do have one person on Zoom all right we'll go with the uh gentleman in the audience today uh Jay Howard wishing to speak in favor um please com up state your name and you have three minutes Jay Howard for the rec record that's j h w r d um evening to the commission and thanks for taking my comment uh my name is Jay Howard and I'm the program coordinator for trucky Meadows Trails uh which is a planning and support program for Trails here in the region um tonight I'd like to go on record in support of the canyon project um which is item 6.5 on your agenda during planning for the Virginia Range Trail Corridor project um which is one of my projects I'm currently working on uh um I've met with members of the Dolan family to discuss uh the planning for a Regional Trail to come across their property which I hope will result in a trail Corridor um from The Hidden Valley trail system down to Geer grid so across that whole section of the Virginia range uh I appreciate the fact that trails and Tra head amenities are being considered in their plans for their properties and the TMT program has just completed a regional Trails plan for the trucky Meadows in the Virginia range of Southeast Reno is a important area for trail connectivity and access thank you thank you as well and Michelle you said we had someone online I apologize yes um but I have her registered for the Canyons but let's see if she wants to make her public comment now or then what's your name huh yeah please Mary can you hear us Mary I had to un can you hear me yes I have you registered for the Canyons um item 6.5 did you wish to make public comment now or do you want to wait until that item is up um if I can make comment now that would be great if you wouldn't mind okay you have three minutes to do so so go ahead and state your name for the record and begin speaking hello my name is Mary harer for the record and I live in Damonte Ridge HOA I submitted a detailed written public comment on 6.5 the Canyons through the portal so I'm only going to highlight the key Point specifically on traffic my first concern is the false information included in the traffic study conducted by Headway Transportation have these issues been addressed with Headway and has an updated study been conducted to show the true data additionally no evaluation was conducted in the study on the intersection of Rio Wrangler and Steamboat which is the intersection that causes a bottleneck on Rio Wrangler during peak hours as a matter of fact none of the traffic studies completed on any of the recently approved projects included the Rio Wrangler Steamboat intersection all of these projects Life Church Life Church School the canyons and Valley View were not in the original master plan and yet were approved but this intersection which is is what determines the actual daily uh and hourly capacity of Rio Wrangler was designed with the original master plan in mind it did not accommodate for these additional projects approved outside of the master plan and as such is now inadequate to handle the extra load the main concern is the cumulative impact and we haven't even talked about Sunny Hills which will add even more loads this intersection has a four-way stop and is operating at an F level of service currently during peak hours B based on a polygon from RTC which shows the current maximum capacity is 500 to 800 vehicles per hour yet the 2024 Argus Trina data shows peak hours right now there are already a thousand vehicles per hour this is well over the current capacity yes this is anecdotal information but is striking enough to Warrant a full traffic study even if there is a proposed roundabout installed by RTC there are concerns it can be designed to a standard that will fully alleviate traffic as the real estate at the intersection is lacking I fear even with a roundabout the road capacity increase during peak hours still will not accommodate the traffic to an acceptable Le level with these additional projects it may be necessary to install the roundabout and consider additional measures like adding other connector roads to draw some of the traffic away let me be clear please I am not asking for a condition that the Canyons pace for a connector Road as this would not be proportional I am asking the commission to require a full traffic study to include the Rio Wrangler Steamboat intersection before considering approval of the Canyons even though the Project's total passes do not require it and if it determines that just adding a roundabout isn't enough at the intersection the commission holds off on approving this project until proper Solutions like adding a separate Connector Road can be investigated and approved by RTC I truly don't know the answers but I urge the commission to be thoughtful and proactive in your decision-making to ensure the roadway infrastructure is in place or at least approved before adding more loads to this already failing intersection and I thank you for for letting me speak thank you as well thank you Mary any Zoom voicemail just double check not on this item okay great anybody in the chambers wish to speak on General Public comment seeing none we will close item three public comment and move on to item number four approval of minutes item 4.1 Reno City Planning Commission regular meeting of June 20th motion to approve all we have a motion motion and a second all in favor I I second I'm sorry who made the second minutes from that meeting has passed or the motion has passed moving on to item 4.2 Reno City Planning Commission regular meeting of July 17th commissioner billan we have a motion to approve we have a motion second Motion in a second all in favor all right motion passes closing item four moving to item number five election of officers so uh me as the chairman have reached my year term and now we can have a conversation about nominations for the next chair and vice chair so you can feel free to express your uh choice and we can have a discussion and a vote on each one I would like to nominate our lovely Vice chair who's been doing a good job in my stad when I'm not here so I'll be nominating commissioner Armstrong I'll second got a motion in a second to make commission Armstrong the chairman any discussion question please um when does this take effect like what's the time period and it goes into effect now okay fantastic uh no Harris has been doing a fantastic job we've got a motion in a second all in favor I motion was or the votes were unanimous congratulations chairman Armstrong and I guess I'll finish for you we do need to nominate a vice chair correct okay so we are now looking for the the prince or princess I'm so sorry Jee uh if uh commissioner wormers uh would indulge me I would nominate her as Vice chair I two would be okay with that all right we have a motion to nominate commissioner rorm as Vice chair we need a second commissioner B second all right we motion and a second all in favor I I I all right motion passes congratulations all right can we take a short break so we can play musical chairs oh do you want to do it let's do it or or do you want to just stay there for now it's up to you I'm good either do you prefer it it's up to you you guys decide hold it down okay thank you chairman so we're good okay yeah do you feel like you need to change the name tags or okay I know who you are all right chairman Armstrong take it away we're uh just close item five thank you we'll close item five and move on to item six public hearings um sorry before public hearings do we want to deal with the postponement um yes just if I can jump in um item 6.1 the applicant has requested a postponement that postponement was submitted uh prior to the public notice for this project so there's no need to open public the public hearing on that item and it's also my understanding that the commission may wish to make some changes to the agenda and I will uh let let you take that uh thank you yes that is accurate uh we had a request to move item 6.5 uh Canyon's PUD amendment to what would be the second item on the agenda so following the Talis Valley planning area tenative map extension I don't have any issues with that um is the Commission in favor of uh changing the order I met with the applicant had heard the same request and I'm fine with this at that point and we can go to 6. two then 6.5 is good with me tran uh do we need a motion and vote to to solidify that no you do not okay so any opposed to changing the order okay seeing none we'll change the order as discussed um so moving on to item six we now open public hearing on item 6.2 any person who has chosen to provide here a her public comment when a public hearing is heard we'll need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary alternatively you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of this meeting I do not have any requests to speak forms uh is anyone in the Chambers wishing to speak or anyone on Zoom take that after staff presentation first go sorry I got the order a little mixed up we'll start with a staff presentation thank you all right staff presentation and congratulation commissioner Armstrong and commissioner rer and Comm congratulations commissioner draulic for no longer being the chair I'm sure you're happy all right so um Jeff Foster associate planner for the record uh tonight I'm bringing you a tenative map extension for Talis Valley planning area 23 Daniel martoma is the Planner on this case but in his absence I am presenting the request uh so this is an approved tenative map from November of 2020 uh that was for 160 single family detached dwelling units um as you know um applicable state law allows uh s Nevada revised statutes stipulates that a final map uh be presented on or before the fourth anniversary of the date on which the tenative map was approved that date was November 4th of 2020 so therefore four years expires November 4th of this year however NRS empowers the Planning Commission to Grant an extension of not more than 2 years for the presentation of any final map after the two-year period for presenting a su a successive final map has expired and that is the request uh before you tonight this two-year time extension uh here is do we have there we go uh here's the recommended motion and and I'm available for questions and I would also note that Andy derling from wood Rogers the applicants representative is here to answer any questions that you may have of him as well he will not be making a presentation thank you very much um so we'll get back to the Commissioners for disclosures uh sorry starting with commissioner VTO uh commissioner belto I spoke with the uh applicants representative I believe I received and reviewed an email to and I'm also familiar with the site commissioner rer no disclosures commissioner Basera similar disclosures as Comm commissioner VTO commissioner dracul communicated briefly with the applicant and familiar with the site commissioner villan W familiar with the site uh no other disclosures uh commissioner Armstrong familiar with the site and I read and received emails otherwise no disclosures um so now we'll move to public comment I have no request to speak forms umich is there anyone wishing to speak on Zoom I did not receive any request to speak forms there's no one on Zoom for this item and we did not receive any correspondents for this item okay uh anyone in the Chambers wishing to speak on this item seeing none we'll close public comment and uh open it up to the commission for questions of the applicant or staff commissioner villino yes I have questions um doesn't matter wh whomever will be able to doesn't matter whoever is available to answer the questions works for me hi good evening um when when was this presented to uh when was the initial project presented to planning um for the record Andy derling with wood Rogers representing the applicant um this tenative map was improved in November of 2020 um so it was a submitted you know a few months before that did it come in front of us again after no no it has not nope it hasn't um and it wouldn't otherwise unless um unless we were doing any major changes which we haven't so this is just an extension looking for the the two extra years um it's a very large project on that side we are diligently pursuing the permits there's about a dozen um building permits and Final maps that are in and processing including the final map for this we just don't know if we'll get to the finish line and time so we want that extra two years um being proactive with this okay so approved 2020 so it's before my time did um what are the findings for this approval it would be what would the findings be for something like this to for an extension it would be the standard tenative map findings that are in NRS so for to improve the extension for the extension specifically it looks like the request here is for an extension is that correct right just the extension that's correct so what are the findings for approving an extension I would refer to your staff report and probably refer to staff on that Jeff Foster associate planner for the record my understanding is that um the only finding is had there been any changes in code that would affect this application and and there have not been so uh it it stands on at the previous entitlement that was granted okay so there's really so we're just looking at I what do we consider I mean just it what's our consideration these extensions have come before this body um multiple times in the last several months or or the last year and it's it's more or less a formality um granted by the Planning Commission I mean it is something that you get to deliberate on but the the extension is allowed by NRS and um effectively it becomes a you know kind of a formality for you to to to vote on okay so nothing is changed in the project thank you uh commissioner bisera sure thank you uh I'll just piggyback off that one just for clarification is is this a one-time deal uh that they get like the a one-time extension just kind of by right if you will okay um I had a question Jeff on um real wringler condition number five and there was a comment earlier uh concerning uh real wringler and maybe it might be solved here um condition number five currently reads something to the effect of the applicant being responsible for building out street improvements for real wringler and is that based off of of uh uh tra Street traffic report or yeah I'm going to defer to Andy derling remember I was not the Planner on this original project so I don't effectively have the answer but Andy would like to speak on that yeah whoever whoever knows you bet um thank you Andy derling again um commissioner berer so essentially that condition speaks to this was a series of tenative maps that we we submitted for U Villages 23 24 25 and 26 so essentially we refer to as the east side of U of the daybreaker Talis Valley uh master plan community and essentially what that says is even though there is a section of real Wrangler that is not necessarily Within you know adjacent to this tentative map we would still need to F fully build that out so this this tentative map because we submitted all of them they all had the same condition they had to stand on their own so if we were to sequence it to build this one which is the furthest North first we would have to build all of real Wrangler to get to service it that's essentially what that condition is saying so that that would be the case I mean we're we're work that they're going to work through it you know sequentially from the South but it's just a a a safety valve yeah thanks Andy commissioner B if I can speak to your question as as well as um commissioner vill and NOA this is this approv if you choose to approve this extension it's simply a two-year extension to record a final map it will not modify or change any of the existing conditions previously placed on the project great thank you that's it any further questions from the commission commissioner Dracula CH ready to make a motion uh any discussion or ready to just move into a motion see no discussion I'll entertain a motion great I haven't delivered a motion in a year uh case number in the matter of case number lc2400 62 Talis Valley planning area 23 tenative map extension based on compliance with NRS 27830 requirements for presentation a final map or series of Final maps extension of time I move to approve a 2-year time extension on the Talis Valley planning area 23 tentative map subject to original conditions of approval motion I second we have a motion in a second all those in favor I I I I uh motion passes unanimously good luck all right we will now close item 6.2 and as discussed we'll move to item 6.5 uh case number LDC c24 D50 the Canyon's PUD Amendment take a presentation from s hey good evening Commissioners for the record I'm Nathan Gilbert principal planner with the city uh presenting a request to amend the Canyon's planed unit development handbook so the subject site is 161 Acres it's located uh just east of the Palisades development um and also to the south of that you may be aware that the council recently adopted the Valley View planned unit development to the South so this request is to amend the existing Canyon's handbook um to increase allowable units from 81 units to a possible of 126 it changes it makes changes to allowed uses within the handbook and provides changes to certain development standards so a little bit of background on the area uh in 2016 the Western most Parcels were annexed into the City and assigned standard single family and and um open space zoning and master plan in 2020 the eastern most Parcels were annexed into the city in 2021 the Canyon's plan unit development for the Western most Parcels was approved for 71 residential units and most recently in 2022 the Canyons was expanded to include the Eastern most parcels and it added u 10 additional residential units to the hbook this is a uh terrain view of the site you can see it certainly has topography a major drainage way which would be protected uh this picture is a little bit dated because Palisades um Community is is built uh the zoning again this is an amendment to the existing Canyons PUD zoning is PUD with the um Palisades development to the West with their uh standard single family three units per acre Zone existing master plan on the site is single family neighborhood and Parks Greenways in open space uh the application requests us support a number of of um master plan policies and specific to the foothill neighborhoods for providing housing incentives housing options within within the development project and uh promoting cluster development so the current uh Landes plan in the handbook uh features five villages with site specific standards and an open space area the developable area allowed now is 42 Acres the open space area is 119 Acres so the request would be a a slight reconfiguration um proposed The Proposal would have two land area designations single family and open open space uh but that total developable area in open space doesn't change so on residential density uh the proposed amendments allow for potential for 126 residential units it's an increase of 45 potential Lots uh to reach that full unit potential at least 16 of the units would be an attached product so that's more uh housing diversity and type and the proposed amendments would also allow for accessory dwelling units Allowed by right so these changes the density bonus and the adus promotes a mix of housing types within in the development that's not currently there open space and Hillside standards again that's 119 Acres or about almost 74% of the PE boundary uh be preserved as open space a minimum of 20% of the home sites will be required to be constructed adhering to Hillside development standards which should be reviewed at that Ted to map process and Associated uh entitlements by the Planning Commission all applications for development that impact the preserved open space area protected hillsides or potentially disturb a major drainage way uh would require a major site plan review so again any more a detailed development would be brought before the Planning Commission for review there are two accesses into a loop roadway that serve the develop vment um that's an improvement from the initial design or the current design additional units proposed with this development do not trigger a traffic study or additional improvements they're simply under the threshold for average daily traffic uh with that that concludes staff's presentation we can make the findings and recommend uh approval thank you thank you looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicant as well I see you Brook good evening Planning Commission uh congratulations new chair Vice chair uh my name is Brooke Oswald um that's wrong wrong one but I'll go ahead and give a little update just on our team and and how it's kind of come together so uh this project has been around I originally worked on this when I was at staff at the city on some of the the original projects so I'm very familiar with the area in the site um we have uh the Dolan family has is is the uh come on as the property owners we have six development Jack Dolan Virginia 40s represented by uh Jim Dolan and then uh Tom Dolan has uh purchased another piece of property uh in this project from someone who is not in the family and so this is all just a family based project now and and Tom has kind of taken the lead to to help bring this team together and move forward uh Venture engineering John mson uh have been working with him John has uh has a is a local civil engineer here has been working on has worked on numerous projects that have been before both uh Planning Commission and city council uh he has what makes John unique is he has a lot of Hillside experience specifically Hillside experience related to the Virginia range so he was the engineer on the recently approved Valley View project my name is Brook Oswald I'm with the ere group I think most of you know me as a city planner I think uh like to give just a little bit more background I am a licensed uh landscape architect I worked for private civil engineer ing firms as a planner environmental planner and landscape architect for several years before I went to the public sector and uh this has been a really great project to apply um those skill sets that I have and we really took this from the base and brought it up based on that so I think uh we we've put together a great team and and are are really excited about the project that we're proposing not it so I'll just uh we got a little bit of location but I'll give you a little bit more just this is dman Ranch High right down the bottom corner there that's the Big D on the hill just so everyone has an idea of what's there this here is a project called dp2 This is a ten approved tenative map for 18 town homes so as was mentioned by staff there is this option to have these alternative unit town homes so they they're not out of place and this really is we're seeing some additional town home in this area the Valley View project that was recently adopted and then the Canyons uh project itself that is approximately 160 Aces um I think we'll uh here is a great way to look at some of the topography and and stuff that sta also showed as you can see on that on the Eastern side or the right side uh we have Rocky and very steep terrain uh you can see kind of an existing dirt roadway that runs access for utility Corridor and also access to the up up above there um in the lower left you're seeing that major drainage weight now as we looked at this we really started from that level of what is there what is appropriate to build and how do we mix invi being uh conscious of the land and and conscious of our housing needs first of all I'd like to make one comment it stands can you come up to the microphone please so we can get yeah I'm just kidding uh Mr Tom Dolan just said the D on the hill is for Dolan not to so for the record um as with two two access points the access point off of M shaft is already actually stubbed out in probably in in anticipation of the future development there um one of the big things we at this first level there are uh feral or stray horses up there on the Virginia range I think with that you've seen many of these come before you before uh I've been involved in this in those for seven years now on different comp capacities working with them I've worked intimately with both The Advocates and the Nevada Department of Agriculture who is uh has the authority over those horses we had a unique situation out here is that um we were getting a lot of horses into the subdivisions and one of the management techniques is diversionary feeding um they were The Advocates were having a hard time meeting some of the standards that the end uh NDA wanted and uh I was able on with the with support of the Dolan to go in and and uh have a meeting with the director of the NDA and was able to get them uh to modify their standards so that we could get a diversionary feeding area and we're also doing a fertility area in that area so um we're able to get that and so we've been working with The Advocates on that and have user agreements the do Dolan have user agreements for them to use their land to help these management techniques but really what the NDA liked is we have this initial space here we have uh the roadway going up the dolans have improved that dirt roadway now so it's accessible so next year this winter and fall we'll anticipate that the feeding area will be further moved up to the East and then in the future as this goes through the dolans at their expense to about $70,000 with the helicopter uh they own uh numerous acres to the East and they went forward and did some reeding and vegetation up in that area to help restore the range that's that is in in in a damaged condition so as we look over at the zon and the master plan as Nate um mentioned there are several Master plans that we see this supports the Recreations the Arts uh the the need for housing that um supplying of infrastructure as projects come online notable sort of extension with the annexation and moving through that so and that those those big policies and I I bring them in at this point because they form that base of how we approach the land and approach the design uh just to give a a few photos of the site this is looking down up through the Palisades development as you can see that development it it starts to slope up the hill and we've got sort of a a terracing effect as you move up that hill with the Canyons being just behind that that top middle house there uh this is a the middle one in the middle there is looking at uh up on uh top of that uh null area and looking off in there there's a relatively flat area where you're seeing uh a lot of our development and that was identified through our our slope map uh the next one is the the horses um those at being fed currently down in the corner over there as you notice this is a really flat area and this is uh will come in as we start to look at how we're going to use that land in the future and then the last photo is it's panoramic so it's a little skewed but shows just the beautiful views and beautiful Reno and and Sierra Nevadas um off to the left there uh Nate went further back into the annexation history just go through that original approval back in 2021 2022 we came in for that adding the additional Lots on the up bringing in 80 more acres and adding those additional Lots this request came in back in March and uh we tended uh the NAB back in June and answered uh questions related to the project and how we were going forward on that uh why the amendment uh the old handbook had some format uh and and some language that sometimes was hard to interpret and as they were uh Consulting with developers and stuff it would how it would be deter uh determined and what was required and it wasn't always exactly clear of how that how that should move forward we also brought the standards in to be uh a lot cleaner so they look like Title 18 and they read a lot more like Title 18 in that way so they're very clear for a developer for City saf to interpret and then also the public to have an understanding of what what's anticipated uh as I mentioned we have an owner organization T Tom coming back on and kind of looking at this project and bringing a new life to that another one is current market conditions back in 2021 we had interest rates were at a very different uh place than they are now uh we've seen but we still have very high construction and labor costs and so we've had to retool this to make it work um with that we did a we actually were not required but we did a an up updated fiscal analysis on this and with the additional homes and the reconfiguration um we're seeing an additional $1.2 million uh net coming back into the city um over the course of the same period of 20 years um we took more as I've said a more holistic approach to this starting from the land really uh letting the land speak of what's appropriate we looked at that access we had the ability to kind of improve access and Public Safety on that and then as I'll go through we've really I I believe we really move forward to improve the open space and the recreational opportunities here I put together a quick uh brief outline and I'll try to summarize it up really quick but sort of what we're proposing what we currently have and and what standard zoning would do or not do for us in this case I think the density um we're currently at an sf4 density we're looking at 110 uh detached units and we can go up to the 126 as was mentioned by staff we have that incentive which is really unique that's not something we're seeing within code or anything and we have those alternative housing PR housing we also are allowing the adus uh that's allowed in the past PUD but I think what we've done a little different there was a donation agreement of $500 we've actually said um because this is not appropriate with no Transportation cost to build we've said we will donate $1,000 per unit going back to the affordable housing we uh are open space um we were originally our emphasis has really been on not just the quantity of open space we everyone always talks about quantity we really believe it's quality of open space that's important and being a landscape environmental designer that was sort of a fundamental way that I approached this um there was a lot of the open space to the east in the previous there were eight uh 10 acre lots on the uh 80 acres up there those have now been moved down into smaller lots and into that area and that will become common area open space so will no be not be held in private hands and we'll be under the control of the HOA um that was not in the previous PUD and then we wouldn't know per code where that it could all that entire project could be private land right except for the required open space and how that was treated uh we do provide some seasonal recreational uses so we put in a pretty hefty recreational plan and we have the ability for uh uh seasonal recreational rentals and horse uh stable to provide potential horseback riding uh those do have further review by staff to make sure that we're we're mitigating all impacts um on the previous one there was a clubhouse and a few other amenities with the tentative map we we really didn't see any other um alternative uses and then if we just went to a straight residential we're going to our home businesses and what's allowed in that way uh in the sustainability uh we we added a sustainability section we had a little bit more robust in working with staff we refined it down a little bit uh the previous uh p UD didn't have a section related to that and although in our code we have a section outlined for that we do not have anything in our sustainability code now so we're trying to uh be Progressive on this project uh restoration as I mentioned the quality versus quantity we actually um in our native Landscapes OB um most of them you'd come back and do a general receding to make sure you um prevented erosion we're coming back in a lot of those open space areas and actually doing native habitat restoration so that will be enhanced landscape that will provide use native plants to provide forage and feed and and cover for mammals and other birds and hopefully encourage uh those those communities back in this area was mentioned we actually 25 of perc of the project will be that adaptable architecture that helps to cut down all those gradings there was no specific number in the previous one they do have adaptable requirements in code but they're not as specific of how many will be within the project uh we are providing two parks uh per the master plan they generally align with a neighborhood p park and a pocket park um they we don't have any identified Parks um in the open space there are some amenities but it's not related to a park itself and then through a a standard zoning it wouldn't be predictable if there was a park or not that would kind of come through a tentative process and how that was all done um our amenities um and I once again I appreciate J Howard speaking on our behalf we are uh providing that trail head to help support the reasonal trail that has off street parking there'll be bar bicycle amenities bike racks required uh bike stations required we're going to provide water there so there'll actually be water along that trail system there is Art required in those Parks shade structures interpretive panels so we've really tried to build it so that it it it becomes a great amenity not just for the community but but for Reno our trails were're in support of that region Trail and have moved that through ours um we've set specific standards on that trail that we're not seeing in some of the previous things um we also are working on the way finding we'll have way finding requirements and so as that trail builds there'll be clear identification of where you are um often times uh puds can be set in time we have puds out there that have no time limit they are good for as long as as as it could be uh the original PUD is 15 years um we there have been new codes come in with puds now with our code we kept the 15 years and what we what is required now is we have City check-ins and so every five years you're checking in to see if the Pud is still appropriate is it are you moving forward where are you in the project and so there's this check-in back with the public and city council to make sure determine that the Pud is the appropriate mechanism um and then our our reviews um one of the nice things is this is the current riew of the process we get it out to the public everyone gets to see it it's transparent um this will after uh tonight's hearing we'll be going to city council so there is another hearing that we'll be having uh this will also require a tentative map and then those Associated reviews of those major site plan reviews so we anticipate those would be incorporated together what we have now there's no further review they have a tentative map uh no fur the public review that would move on to a final map and then through the the last one that you'd have a zoning map Amendment and tentative Maps now I think we really need to talk about that zoning with Hillside development you could set a zoning anywhere from an sf3 to an mf30 and we have them around town like that right and so it is right now we're very specific that we can build 110 units we can't build more detached we can build those additional as an incentive with zoning coming in We There is a uncertainty of what the density or how that could be um applied there going through our development cont uh concept again that Simplicity of standards and land uses down to five villages we had all these product types it's only 110 homes and what we found is a consistency through the de development and a consist your time up sorry it didn't ding um I I will if if I may ask for just uh two more minutes I'll zip it up and be done is that okay I don't have an issue with two more minutes okay thank you so as we do we have the loop road we've protected that drainage way as you can see uh we have one point of crossing the old one went right through the drainage way and had a high impact we've really uh tried to protect those uh important things we have better utilities and services and uh we a more efficient use of land and then our open space uh we're bringing in these Parks two parks in here uh a trail head being identified the areas are Regional trail running through our connective down to the existing Palisades and the connectivity inside and then we we anticipate that connectivity to Future development we are providing that additional habitat and that as we we move forward as I discussed so just that project summary I kind of went through all those things I'll leave it at that we also we did a a traffic access study uh not required at this point it would come in with the tentative map we did it for the 126 units uh that was what was uh spoken about tonight it showed that no no additional improvements and that that that capacity was there and as I mentioned EK did the uh Financial uh assessment for us thank you and I appreciate the extra time thanks book appreciate it bring it back to the commission for disclosures commissioner Villa commissioner villanua I I think this project was in front of the original was in front of me um I'm I don't know I will um find out shortly here um and no other disclosures commissioner Dracula met with the applicant and his Representatives uh read and received emails and familiar with the site commissioner berera same disclosures as commissioner draulic and I toured the site commissioner rorer same disclosures as commissioner draulic commissioner VTO same disclosures commissioner Armstrong read and received emails I spoke with the applicant and his representative I'm familiar with the site and that is all I have on disclosures we can bring it to the Commissioners for for questions wait can we wait oh sorry so we did receive correspondence that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and has been entered into the record also um we did not receive any voicemails and um no requests to speak forms anyone in the Chambers wishing to speak on this item seeing none now I will bring it back to the Commissioners and open it for questions Commission drau thank you chairman uh question for Brooke not sure if he touched on it too much uh how's one did you meet with the NAB how'd that go what's the feedback um rather than received some emails so anyway feel free to address certainly we went through the NAB there you know we explained went through a lot the horses it came up uh water on that uh you know explained that there there is no water on the site uh there is no no natural water source around there uh we discussed sort of the ecological there was concerns this was early on and we worked with staff to kind of modify some of those concerns too and tried to address those those were due to uh some of the early grading uh things that we were requesting and the ability to move forward a little bit quicker but we work through staff to get through that so what were your overall feelings from you know multiple neighbors good bad just kind of the things you addressed and you feel like you've solved some of those problems so far yeah certainly um you know having been to number of nabs uh relatively uh good feedback that war war 2 always has great feedback um they uh would the ones that I could address at that time I did um other otherwise you know there's people who who who don't want development or or change or or have you know are skeptical of some of uh the development Community coming in but um you know trying to handle those respectfully and and and you know and and take their uh concerns into consideration all right thank you m commissioner bisera sure um yes for for Brooke um you had mentioned in your presentation that there were some sustainability components that were refined down a little bit but you didn't I don't think I caught what was it that was refined down and perhaps why was it refined down sure so I um I lead a Credit Professional also and so what I using some of the basic principles of of sustainability uh especially neighborhood development sustainability and some of those we were trying to expand that section out a little bit more working with staff there were some concerns of how it would be enforcable or or how how would they monitor it and so uh the decision kind of came to pull those back a lot of those were construction materials and the the contractor developer making sure disposal uh um trying to Source materials within a certain uh location um uh making sure that protected open space providing certain densities and that they're they're Incorporated within the handbook itself but we kind of just brought those down so they were uh simple to interpret and and um and for them to administer uh may I translate that yes um I think I got it did did you propose something that you're no longer doing because staff said not to do it or you propos then and you said it in Jedi speak and now it's in layman terms and it's still there uh no it working with staff we did remove a lot of that and really brought it down to four or five core sort of elements um they did feel they were enforcable we you know our argument back was that we were trying to set a standard and maybe that wasn't always administered by staff but there was still a requirement of the handbook and sort of set the Precedence of what we wanted uh as sustainability within our development and project um may I have a followup with staff on that is that okay just yeah that's fine go ahead and follow up hey Nathan um I'm I'm curious usually it's hard to get folks to you know just give freely uh or willingly um things on sustainability and it seems like in good faith they were trying to do that and staff would told them to kind of pull back a little bit do you know do you know why my my recollection on that was some was some I think the the key concern was was the language and like Brook said enforceability so we don't typically like standards that aren't standards in a in a PUD handbook I mean that's aspirational um but the way and again my recollection of that was uh there there were some feel-good policies that you know put put your money where your mouth is make it a standard or not and so I think what we I I think um the staff person Carter Williams working on this with with the applicant and and their team into kind of kind of finding some common ground like what can we really do what what can we get in here that's a that's a true standard okay I'm I'm going to hold on to that for a sec and yield my time to question for Nathan thank you um could that have been accomplished with a development agreement conceivable something like a community benefits agreement something that required materials from within a certain radius to minimize trip distance and there are there are other tools and certainly the PED itself could do that I mean it would be it things like construction materials can be difficult to enforce like when at what point do staff you know we're looking at a final map you know the more technical stuff so want end you know if we want it to be a a definable standard we need it to be enforcable um but there's certainly nothing precluding them or a future developer of the site from from doing that and I think they they did incorporate some some real um measurable sustainability standards like with EV charging and things like that we can look at that the Planning Commission can look at that when we get a tenanted map we'll have a condition of approval so we don't over um Overlook it you know during the further reviews and make sure that that that attainable and um enforceable standard is implemented my question is regarding is the handbook the right tool for this project because in reading it it felt a lot like Title 18 it read a lot like Title 18 um things like a major site plan review felt like Title 18 can you explain to me what differentiates this other than having a cover page it's it's a lot of Title 18 there's no no doubt about that but I think the tool that it does provide uh is some high higher level things like the parks and the trail connectivities um things like that some um sustainability standards that are measurable you wouldn't get that with standard zoning so that this was the the path that they uh pursued and um we we think it's an an adequate project I'll let any Commissioners want to commissioner vill thanks thank you chair um this is I I I'll ask staff because um it says in the staff report that this came before Planning Commission in 2021 but I don't know when so I wasn't able to find the meeting because I remember this project I just don't remember how I I think I know how I voted but I wasn't able to verify how I voted do do you know uh I don't I don't know off hand um you kind of had that timeline there's been various amendments uh to it so the most recent one I believe was 2022 okay but we don't know when in 2021 it was in front of the planning Comm do you know okay so um okay well I will um I'll jump to my next question um response time fire response time it's beyond six minutes um and now we're adding more houses um and I think oh well I'll go to the next question can you touch on that one first yeah the master plan does allow that in limited circumstances es they adap to that they the handbook maintains Wildland Urban interface more specific standards that the fire department the Fire Marshall worked with their team in making sure that they're explicitly put in this PUD again it's it's a lot of Title 18 but there are there are pieces where you are getting Above and Beyond in that in that regard uh they'd be required to have fire sprinklers and the like that's normal in the Foothills portion of and you know this is a m if we're looking at the master plan we're considering this portions of the sphere of influence it would be the Foothills is that right this this is the city of Rena this this was annexed no I know that but it's with that when we're looking at the master plan which I have pulled up right here and I'm looking at um so this is considered the foothill neighborhood yes right that's how it's referenced in the master plan is it common to you know when response times are delayed is that how we respond we just put in sprinklers that would be typical that's pretty common place you're also looking at the macro effect and there's more specific master plan guidance um input from from First Responders you know and and the scale and the scope so okay so how the can you define okay well let me figure out I'm going to ask this question the urban interface how is that different from a Foothill neighborhood are they different in any way or are they defined differently are they just referenced in one way in the master plan in a different way in the development code probably the latter it's it's it's the way we break down the city in into the structured network of um it's a it's a planning tool okay so are fires a concern fires are always a concern yeah in the north and especially in the yeah any anywhere anywhere you have Wildland Urban interface um it's it's an increased risk and so that that's what the the standards are for okay I have other questions but I'm going to actually I have many other questions but I'm going to let others speak cool thank you we'll come back to you uh any other Commissioners have questions at this time uh commissioner illo would you like to continue okay great so with regard to um the when it was presented to and I'm working off memory because wasn't able to pull it the meeting because I can't locate the meeting um but if I can I guess I'll have the applicant come up Brook Oswald for the record hi Brooke um do we have any mapping comparing what was presented initially and what's now being presented with respect to the additional housing um Nate had uh yes there is one in Nate's that shows the the older Villages and how that was and we can look at that new plan I think some of the major differences are that Loop Road and as you spoke to fire that's one of the things that helps helps fire is to be able to have two access points where we didn't uh have that before um as Nate mentions those standards of the wooi and some of that so Michelle will work to pull that up um we really that was one of the the big points uh for both the utilities and that service of the utilities for the city and for that uh access now that's 6 minutes we we are aware of that um at this higher zoning level it's hard to determine we may have some homes that are not six minutes question sorry to interrupt I think you're getting that question was already addressed I just don't want to take up too much time and I know you're I apologize for going off on that I yeah was yes um so the do do you happen to have like a GIS or anything that we can see uh maybe what it was before what was proposed before and what's being because I think what I'm trying to get it is I think some of that open space that was pres and I'm working off memory so I could be wrong I think some of the open space has now been filled with houses and that was a compromise in the last proposal so so we are providing the exact same amount of open space we just prioritized a lot of places so one of the way places we prioritized was the major drainage way which they had a high impact we went to one single point so what we did on the Loop Road yes we're adding additional homes and we are developing down another side that was originally um designed as custom homes over there uh they didn't have the utilities so the sewer all would have had to been pumped back up at a expensive cost Additionally you don't quite know how grading is going to go out or those impacts of grading over there so what we we believe with our plan now that we have an exact number of open States now 119 is the minimum to be honest I believe that we'll probably be providing a more open space than that as we move forward so um Michelle if you can throw up NES really quick and you can see the original plan ended at the top of the hill and didn't loop back down and then our new plan now adds um it uses a space that was custom homes to put in the roadway and build homes down and establish roadway so that we can get the infrastructure and the Loop Road in for Access okay but I think it was proposed the way it was originally proposed because it was you know towards the top to closer to the Foothills more open space again I'm remembering where that has changed is on the the top of this project site um we're we're seeing we're seeing that we have now completed the Loop Road where we had development over there before but it was all Customs we've now completed a loop rope on the top and that's where you're seeing add kind of the additional development but as I said we took the open space we were impacting there which isn't as uh identifiable and Prime open space and we identified those areas of the the natural drainage way and and some of the other areas there to really make sure we were protecting those areas and the hill and so can we touch on the hillside development so um can you cover that a little bit for me are we cutting into are there cuts and fills I didn't let me take a look what's unique about this project the previous project had uh there are cuts and fills and we'd anticipate those with the major site plan review that's required and we'd see those through the tentative map so those will be reviewed when we have a final GR in plan in detail by both staff and and the Planning Commission um additionally uh we have put in uh some Hillside things uh back back in where we're requiring the certain amount of adaptable architecture that cuts down on the amount of of of uh cuts and fills the big thing that really came with this project on the old project there were about 200,000 yards of off Hall um that has tremendous impacts both sustainability cost-wise and then those surrounding neighborhood really suffer uh we're really coming in that we're we're almost balancing the the site and we've got a standard that says we have to be in with 25% balance of that site and so that is a really huge from a hillside development to be able to move that and that's really being creative on how we've we've created The Loop Road been able to spill dirt minimize Cuts where we can and so that's how we we've been sensitive to the cuts and fills on this site does anyone else have questions cuz then I'm going to keep going oh he does okay I'm going to no you do you don't okay so the is this near a mine or was it near a former mine I just want to is there what any issues with toxicity and ground or nothing nothing has been explored this is a little bit unique as though we they have done a number of test pits you can actually see some little white dots underneath those those are soil test pits so they've actually done soil samples and that's a little further along than you'd normally see because they were they were testing some of the sites stuff nothing nothing dangerous or anything that has been um discovered at this point no it's not like some of the other areas where we might expect Mercury or some of those that that you have seen before you in the past okay I will um let someone else speak thank you commissioner Basera sir uh thank you chair followed by commissioner VTA great um I think this one's for Nate hey Nate I'm going to just go back to kind of follow up on my prior question um and I'll just curious how does staff review periodically um developer Trends particularly ones where where the trend is exceeding uh Reno code standards and incorporate them back into the into code so they become the standards kind of like this one right so you're saying what we're talking about here is that the the standard is here this project wanted to do some sustainability initiatives that exceeded the standard and yall said it's not enforceable so they kind of brought it back down to to code but I'm curious how how do we raise the bar periodically based on these Trends what's the mechanism or the process you know that staff follows and I'm sure Mike's probably going to want to chime in on this one too um what make sure I understand your question sure so and I don't think I do can I ask you to rephrase yeah absolutely um so the the Reno code standard is here let's say for sustainability and a project like this one wants to go a a little more above and beyond and y'all are saying that above and beyond is not enforcable because it's not the standard right so they have to trim it trim it down back but what what's staff's mechanism or process for reviewing these Trends where Builders developers are going above and beyond and then saying you know what we really should be reevaluating our standards and perhaps uh upping our game a little bit well I I think that's something that the Planning Commission has the ability to discuss you're making a recommendation to Council on what on on what these standards should be so okay you you know staff staff worked with the applicant um going over the details the devil's in in the details with the Pud because it's it they can be really um a beast um but I think I think from what I recall um and and looking at some initial drafts we we we did have concerns but I think um and maybe Brooke um can probably speak to to some of the the other sustainability elements if there's something more um you know that's this is a re recommendation you have condition one uh if you choose to approve this or recommend uh the council will approve this uh to make you know make additions I think it's it's fair as part of your discussion and deliberation okay thanks ni because I do think that commissioner rm's suggestion of having a developer agreement is that right that would have been an alternate option right might might be a good tool and and man I'd love to see more of these projects because it sounds like they went above and beyond so far un certain things and it would be nice to have like things in the record that we can look back at as a team you know y'all commission and so forth and say hey maybe for future projects this is where the standard is for certain things so uh you answered my question thanks commissioner VTO sorry Nate I think I need you back up for a second so we're looking at an amendment to p P handbook or a PUD Amendment are we supposed to be looking at the project in its entirety or just whether the proposed amendments comply with the finding requirements you're looking at the proposed amendment the handbook is are if if nothing H further happens that handbook will still be there great okay and as far as there was an issue raised earlier about fire and I think my understanding of that is that one the handbook says that there'll be some sort of interactive process with the relevant Public Safety agencies and they'll come up with some sort of Emergency Response plan and is it your impression that that is adequate in order to ensure that there is fire safety yeah I we we the applicant and staff have met with the fire marshall um I think more than once during during the course of this review um there's many more applications to go right yeah okay um as far as the increasing the number of residential units was there anything that concerns staff with increasing the number or would those concerns be better suited when there's a tenative map put map put before us that we'll look at and kind of evaluate where it's placed and whatnot so this sets the Baseline and I think um the staff person working on this is initial concern was the balance between the grading the grading impacts um and that would facilitate that that increased density um we're going from three three units per acre to to four what's what's the impact on the grading and I think that the Provisions that have made through this iterative process um have addressed those concerns great okay thank you so much I appreciate it I think I'll go ahead and jump in if that's okay did you have more questions are you still uh so I'm s saying oh sorry go ahead commissioner RM sorry your mic's off my apologies um can you just sort of walk us through the changes in grading my understanding is that although balancing a site is certainly advantageous economically perhaps some of the features might be lost in a flattened filled situation so again I I'm pinch hitting tonight so I'm I'm probably not as versed as i' as I'd like to be for that um I think probably Brooke can can talk about some of the compromises that that were that were made um through this process Brook oold for the record uh thanks for the question Carrie I you know I think we you'd start all the way back at that required open space and the limitation on the development area right because that's going to limit where those grading uh we may have some impacts coming up but that's really where that development is where we'd anticipate the most of those grading impacts um in once again it's that I think one of the biggest things that facilitated the grading and some of the the the the ability to balance the site was that Loop Road and being able to come back around that other side uh using um there's some steeper slopes there but the the um the uh engineer was really conscious to try to to work through those and put homes or to use the hillside adaptable standards in there as we come back down that Hillside um I I think that requirement of having a certain percent of adaptable um Hillside architecture really helps to potentially uh mitigate those larger impacts um I think as we're seeing those grading and some of that grading coming back that restoration work that we're doing which isn't just a a native we're doing a native receding and looking to kind of accentuate that I think where we would see those grading impacts we'll see those come to more of a naturalized State and so those are the things that I think we've Incorporated to try to to minimize though there are going to be grading impacts it's a it's a Hillside and it's it's a very challenging site but we've tried to be conscious of that and tried to reduce it where we can or use techniques to minimize it um we we're currently working on the backside and you know we're working to identify our our um our land plan and at this point we've been working doing some conceptual stuff in the background understanding our grading and our lot layouts um I think on the I would anticipate on the tale of approval if we move forward and get this Amendment approval we would uh anticipate uh shortly after there we'd be coming forward and you'd be seeing a tentative map of of the project I'll save my thoughts for discussion thank you thank you uh any other questions at this time uh this one's for Nate and uh sorry to go back to this something maybe it's helpful to frame it I think there's kind of a disconnect potentially on the sustainability aspects what I'm hearing is that at some point in time there were probably like lofty or maybe non-committal like committal from like a contractual or obligatory perspective like hey we would really like to do this for sustainability or that for sustainability but there's like there's no teeth so it'd be great if it happens but it's not really practical and if it doesn't happen then then there's like no recourse so the process ranged that in and effectively set up some standards or conditions that would be actionable so it's not removing or defacing any sustainability it's just actualizing something we could hold the future developer to while still achieving sustainability goals that are not formally prescribed in the development code is that kind of a fair way to think about it yeah that that's accurate I mean for example I I believe you know the the I don't remember where the the standard landed in the handbook um at at final but there's a certain amount of lots that'll have to have EV be EV charger ready sure that started off as more lofty you know kind of we should have that kind of thing so I believe my understanding is the staff discussion was what can we really do what what can we what are you committed to to making you know putting in your performa that you're actually going to deliver um on on these things that that's my understanding of of staff's discussion and that could have been achieved through another vehicle or instrument such as a development agreement but there doesn't necessarily need to it's not necessarily better or worse if it came through another vehicle as long as it's conditioned and committed to is that a reasonable way to think about it yeah okay great I don't have any fur questions uh commissioner baser sure um I'll piggyback off that one I guess I didn't want to but since mentioned it um I do want some resolution there um maybe for Brooke on this one I think the EV charging one kept coming up as an example but perhaps because it was an actual uh proposal right and it's youall want to do it but it's not the base standard does that correct um no it is the base standard so there's a requirement for a certain percentage of the units to have be EV ready um which would require you know 220 outlet within the garage um in anticipation of you know electric vehicles um some of the other ones are just you know the amount of of units and clustering to make sure we're meeting certain densities I think Nate is right and and I appreciate uh commissioner Armstrong's um Step it was we we did have lofty goals and and maybe it wasn't sort of the appropriate maybe there's another mechanism but I think with working with staff we got them down to some fundamentals that I think are enforcable and that and that we agree to and uh you know came to a place and I think it's a a great um sort of start to start to think about this and actually put a section you know within within a handbook of for sustainability right right okay well uh and maybe I'll save some of this for for um discussion amongst us afterwards but but I think it's important that when when folks go above and beyond that we have a mechanism to capture that so we as a team as staff on our side um can see what the trends are and and where we need to adjust our standards um so so our standard doesn't stay here over the course of 10 years which is why and I applaud you guys I think you mentioned every 15 years you want to review your PUD uh language because like happens um put that aside my other question was the parks are those open to the public uh yes every all all the parks and trails will will'll have Public Access U across them granted easements across those and are are intended to be used by the public and supported to be used by the public okay awesome um really I think that's it great job commissioner Villa thank you um Brooke for you was the applicant who you're currently representing today the same applicant who applied initially for uh what what has changed the two of them are the same that's Jack Dolan and Jim Dolan um with Associated properties what has changed is Tom Dolan has uh there was a nonf family member uh that owned one of the 40 acre parcels and Tom uh stepped forward and uh bought that parcel and sort of made it a family uh gig so they could all work together to do it so that's what's changed is there's one property owner um has been transferred to Tom Dolan so when it was initially proposed for the most part the same applicants presented kind probably got together talked presented the initial application and then now has come back and is now presenting what I think is significant alterations to what was initially proposed but um but for the most part it was the same applicant right except one slight modification yeah for the most part same applicant I think it's it's h yeah there are differences but there there's tradeoffs right and I think we've tried to balance those trade-offs on this on this new project and and make something that's feasible buildable and be respective of of the comments that we've had in the past and and having I had worked through a lot of that so I knew what a lot of those were so uh being horses major drainage way some of those things Okay the reason I I remember this even though I can't find the meaning is because I vividly remember the preservation of that open space and so that's another big concern for me is that's changing in addition to the addition of new homes and and it we we still will be preserving the same amount of different type of it's the same but the quality of it is different we believe that the quality is actually better what we're protecting now than it was what we were protecting before thank you no further questions this is commissioner belto I how I I I'm trying to understand this might be more a question this might be better for discussion actually okay should we move into discussion or are there further questions I had one more if that's okay okay go ahead commissioner thank you chair um I think Brooke one more time in the hot seat um I wanted to follow up on a tenative map question that commissioner warm had uh she had mentioned something about when we would be able to get a tenative map before us um and you mentioned shortly Hereafter if things went a okay tonight um um would you be able to put a more specific timeline to that and I'm only asking because uh we just had the Daybreak project formerly known as day break project asks for an extension because uh it's probably costly to build right now um and so I'm just wondering how this project differentiates from that if it if everything is pretty costly right now sure you know um development is is always over a period of time so to directly answer so we would uh based on your decision tonight and either decision we'll be moving forward to Planning Commission on uh August 28th is when we're scheduled second reading is normally the two weeks after that so we're looking uh midt I would probably see late September early October that we would you'd be anticipated uh us submitting a tentative map then that's usually a 45 to 60-day review maybe more if there's more questions and working with staff on that but um you know I I imagine you'd potentially could be see something towards the end of the year or early next year okay great thank you so much did you have any additional questions can we move into discussion all right who would like to start discussion commissioner VTA okay would you like to begin okay um so I I hear a lot of concerns about what this project will look like and I struggle to understand necessarily why there'll be a loss of public space I get that you can Inuit it that because there's more units there'll be less space but I because we don't have a tenative map I don't know what it will look like so I'm not sure exactly what the layout will be so because of that I don't think I can assume there will be a loss of space because I don't know what it's going to look like and if we get a tentative map then we can evaluate that I think a lot of the concerns were that are being raised are kind of premature um I think we should just look at whether the Amendments we can make the findings based on the Amendments and I think I can make the findings based on what the amendments are I don't think this is a drastic change other than there being more units um I know we've talked a lot about wanting more density and wanting more units as a policy ration now I understand we shouldn't be considering that but just looking at what findings we're supposed to make I think the Amendments have been supported by staff seem reasonable to me uh so I I think I can support them but I'm open to being persuaded and I want to hear yall's perspective thank you commissioner R yes um I think I could make the findings if we were here getting a straight zoning request for a single family an open space because we would be compelled to consider the zoning exclusively without a project by adding the Pud handbook we are here to evaluate the detail of how this differentiates itself from code I would be curious to see the layout the um exact locations of building Footprints the architecture and its sustainability all of the features that make it above and beyond because this is a special place with constraints like cultural resources water resources Wildlife both Eagles and horses um I think there were a lot of concerns that we received from public comment around transportation and I appreciate your connection with Rio Wrangler that was a very astute um so by having the handbook versus a development agreement or a straight zoning request it actually compels us to have more detail in our determination now that said this is a legacy because this is an amendment to a handbook and if we do nothing the existing handbook stays and you just have to figure out a way to make that sellable which I guess the export on the current handbook would be preclusive of you making a project um the project is developable it's a green field there's will there's been a lot of effort put into this so I'm really hanging on to that Legacy of amendment versus new project but I really feel like a PUD handbook commands more than straight code and and I'm not seeing that here and that's that's giving me a lot of heartburn as a planner question question of Carrie so um I hear what you're saying um you would want to see more design standards in is in the handbook MH um I guess I guess I'm struggling with because there is the legacy of the handbook I kind of have a similar concern as you do that it's almost like we can't say well they should have done this then they didn't now we're just looking at changes so I hear what you're saying but that's a valid concern thank you yeah yeah so I'm convincible to making that out there but I I really I was looking for more detail is where I am commissioner Villa thanks um so this I mean this is a PUD and so I view puds as you know they typically are unique they they for whatever reason can't use the development code because of unique circumstances and um but with this project I see it as that they were just trying to get around the development code to to develop where in a place where it probably shouldn't have been initially developed um and so you know I now they're in this predicament where they're asking for this amendment and then we're looking at the details and um and you know I'm just not seeing what I what I would like to see to add you know I'm generally in favor of more housing um and so long as it's thoughtful and I just don't think I think that this is not um conducive to the character of the neighborhood um to the master plan um and I think well we can't really look at the development code because it's a PUD but um I just it's I have a lot of um issues with it um with the changes being requested thank you commissioner VTO um so I I hear both of your concerns I do think I can make the findings because of this fact that this was a uh we already approved the handbook as is we were at the time accepting the fact that maybe there weren't design standards or other things we wanted to see so now we're just looking at whether the Amendments con form with we can make the findings on the Amendments and I I think I can make the findings under the Amendments I think in hindsight it might have been better when the first time this came through we looked at some other things and questioned what was in the handbook but given where we are now uh I don't want to penalize the applicant for not having done that the first time when in my view this isn't the appropriate time for us to tell them what you should have done it differently based on our perspective uh so I I just want to keep my decision just focused on what the amendments are and I think that's why I asked Nate that question earlier was just to understand what the scope of our decision is um so I I I feel like we'd be doing we'd kind of be putting the burden too much on the applicant if we were to say you didn't do it right the first time we wish there was more in the handbook had they come forward and sought amendments that tried to put in place design standards I think then we might be more inclined to evaluate that but because they haven't I think we're confined to just what their requests are so that's why I I can support the the project or the application commissioner B sure thank you chair um I'm curious maybe a question for for for Mike uh because I I do agree with commissioner RM that um it'd be great to have more detail and especially if it's a PD and it needs to go above code um are we able to condition let's say tonight say hey we're all on board or some of us are on board and as long as that when you guys bring a tenative map to us you can add these additional design details that commissioner Mars referring to you can certainly add conditions uhuh and require changes to the handbook as Nate mentioned in his presentation condition number one says that this will be subject to any additions or alterations made by Planning Commission Andor city council so if there's additional standards that you would like to see in the handbook you can certainly condition them what those standards can be um and then that re would be included in your recommendation to the to the city council great thank you because because I am I I do I am looking at this project and I think my general lens for any project coming before us is how can we improve it or make it better in collaboration with staff the community at large the applicant um rarely do I ever want to say no if you can't meet the findings right um so I do want to see how we can support commissioner R's uh perspective because I also agree with it as well uh and and I think it'll Lins with what I was referring to earlier is if someone's going above and beyond how do we capture that and make that the bar of Excellence at some point um and I also agree with commissioner VTO that we don't want to put undo burden as well now how can we essentially move things forward but still not have it move forward where we can't still work together and um and see those details that maybe we should be seeing chair yeah Commissioner of villino please so the project I mean they're able to develop as the project was originally developed or excuse me presented it's not like they can't develop their project it's just without the additional housing and some of the modifications um so it's they're going to continue to develop whether or not we approve the amendment today it's my that's my understanding um it's just their subject to what was originally presented when it it was approved when the Pud was approved at the beginning my green is on uh my understanding is that the original handbook allow it's just not fiscally available like you cannot develop it at the current state how and I S can somebody explain that to me I don't doesn't pencil yeah it doesn't the grading and the number of units doesn't equate to a sellable project yeah when we broke this down we really looked at at what would make the the project pencil as I as I mentioned markets have really changed interest rates Labor uh the pandemic had incredible um impacts on on both labor and Supply chains and costs um what what we found is is being able to balance the site respectfully uh balance it and grade it and those additional units create an opportunity that that we we could M um make this developable again so yeah there are a lot of challenges with the current plan on just the amount of units um the ability to you know either move that into a Home Builder's hands or something like that there there were there's just too many challenges with the existing handbook so you're so what's essentially being asked of us is we were asked to basically make compromises despite the code just because I mean because the numbers don't pencil out don't know okay thank you that's helpful though thank I appreciate it commissioner Delta so I hate to open the store but I'm curious what type of design standards you think we would be able to impose as a condition that uh let me rephrase that I don't think we know enough about the project or what they're trying to do in order for us to say here are design standards we think that you should abide by and it's weird for us at the Planning Commission meeting to tell the applicant these are all the things we want you to do for your project before they've necessarily put together before they've started down that road so it's possible they have an idea they have what they're going to do but I that's I struggle with that I have an idea for you okay um I'd like to see personally I think it would be behoove somebody with a difficult site like this a good site but a difficult site because of topography and the GE geography and geology a constraints map that be goes beyond a slope map slope map is one thing shows you the the 3:1 slope shows you the 30% and above and the buildable non-buildable and the mitigation areas that you need for open space map the archaeological constraints map the wildlife constraints map the Regional Trail show all of these things and then come with the tenative map with the actual buildable area I feel like that additional type of mapping is really what's required for these sorts of peripheral Hillside developments and it was disappointing to not see that in and the Pud could you would that be something you would want to condition that when they come with a tenative mat they also come with that absolutely and I think that you're going to do all those feasibility analyses anyway so it isn't really unkown aous ask could we have some feedback can you come up to the microphone Brook Brooke oswal for the record yeah per your question yes we have done that analysis based on soil uh geographical constraints Wildlife constraints or the lack of wildlife we are actually trying to encourage Wildlife because the land's been administered so that's how we we based our initial sort of land plan based on that uh open space area in the developable area so we we have done that it was not included in the handbook but that if if that's something you you know would like to see we could we could put a little bit more analysis in the front end of the the the handbook I do believe it would give a lot of comfort in knowing that this project will not have impacts commissioner B sorry I I just want a Clarity so you would want to do a condition that they bring that with the tenative map proposal okay perect great um gosh I lost there just wanted to say that um I'm all for uh a motion with an amendment I'd have to follow commissioner roer's lead though on the specific enumerated uh details um but I also believe that this is kind of Step One this doesn't uh necessarily finalize things in a certain way this just kind of gives folks a green light to move forward to uh the tenative map stage and then at that point if they can't meet the standards as well there's a stop Gap measure in place for us to kind of course correct with folks so I I do feel good about personally moving forward I can make the findings uh particularly with the uh forthcoming Amendment uh or condition um and I do want to applaud the applicants for working closely with staff and just kind of raising the bar a bit I think that's the kind of stuff that I would love to see more of from more applicants at this scale so kudos to youall do we have any additional uh comments I would hope commissioner orire is ready to make a motion could somebody put the motion on the board and also while we're waiting for that I I would like to make a comment I I largely see the world simulator commissioner VTO so I don't want to be redundant but uh I'm very much in favor of keeping the scope to the amendment and the findings hope to go making those findings um I think commissioner roor me's uh you know proposed condition makes sense for this and uh would go along seems like not a ton of effort on on the applicant side but would go a long way kind of on the uh the public body and City staff side so I would support that Amendment as well chair I have a question I'm still trying to see how does that change how does that being presented I mean if we approve it and then it goes to council then Council improve it improve approves it with the tentative map I mean how does that change at that point it's it's done I mean we're just looking at design and we're looking at location and placement and a lot of that stuff just in my experience tends to kind of go through with no problem generally anyway so what what do we what do we really get out of that if you so I my opinion is that what those of us that don't have an issue with the amendment and think project makes sense going forward it gives us the added level of detail that I think commissioner Ro Meer specifically pointed out was lacking um and at the time a tenative map comes back we would have basically a better gradient of okay here's what's in the tenative map but also here's this like extended map of all the constraints that we care about so I think it is additive in terms of giving us a better handle on what to expect when we get a tenative map more detail how does that change the constraints that exist like the grading like the cuts and fills like the location like the I just I mean then we have more detail but how does it change the reality of where these houses are going to be built I mean that's the root of the problem um I think Comm and commissioner you can correct me if I'm wrong but I think her point was that we don't actually have as good of a handle on the constraints as we could so we would like a better handle on the constraints and we would like that to be a part of the tenative map process so that we have more complete information when we get the tenative map and can have a more informed decision is that a fair way to characterize it you can you can jump in on yeah absolutely I'd love to see where a say a building proposed building footprint overlays with a known Horse Trail or where it overlays with some potential archaeologic history um so I I feel like the constraints map will reveal itself during the tenative map to make sure that we're understanding the full extent of the impacts um I I mean at this stage we're really considering an up Zone in essence we're considering a removal of villages and more density of housing single family potentially some single family attached housing and that's about it but because they added the handbook but failed in my opinion to include the sort of detail that a handbook should entail um it at least it pushes it maybe punts it to the tenative map stage but then it's the onuses on them to give us a visual product that really explains the site and I get and I appreciate that because that's a great suggestion and I think that's really helpful you know great um idea um but I think once we give the okay it's hard to you you can't go back you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube I mean it's you can't say no at that point um you could deny a tentative map yeah but I've seen the district court cases that come down when I know what that looks like um so in any case Okay um thank you for all of that information I'll entertain a motion I had one more suggestion this is a light policy suggestion not a condition as the single most uh distributor of electric vehicles in this city and in our region maybe that 60 % threshold could be even a bit higher um in terms of number of units with EV Chargers I second that just a my two cents uh but in the case of LDC 0050 based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to recommend that Council approve the handbook Amendment to the Canyon's planned unit develop subject to condition one and the addition of a constraints map submitted at the time of tenative map I second that we have a motion and a second all those in favor I all those oppose no motion passes good luck with your project that will close item 6.5 if the commission will indulge me I would suggest a five minute break before moving on to the next item any everyone's okay with that that y okay we'll adjourn for 5 minutes there was an extra Kit Kat in there oh I took the last oh snap e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay we will bring it back uh to the Planning Commission sorry we went a little over 5 minutes so appreciate the patience um but we will start back up again with item 6.3 case number lc2400 59 Furukawa Furukawa Rock drill sorry it's a little tricky to say uh Jeff Foster associate planner for the record uh bringing you tonight LDC 2459 fukawa Rock drill uh the project site is uh 1 acre part on the North side sorry the south side of security Circle about 250 ft east of the intersection with North Virginia Street as you can see on the uh slide here um and that's west of Highway 395 uh the parcel is currently developed with a 9,000 foot Warehouse building parking lots landscaping and an outdoor storage area to the east um and the request that is before you tonight is a conditional use permit that would allow heavy equipment and machine rental sales and service in the mixed use Suburban Zone I should note that this is an existing use uh and so we are retroactively permitting it or requesting the permit uh conditional use permit so uh zooming in a little bit closer uh the surrounding land uses you have industrial and boat and RV storage across security circle to the north uh you have industrial to the East and to the west and to the uh uh uh and trucking to the South and the closest residential use is about 325 ft uh to the West as you can see on the screen um the key issues that staff analyzed in the staff report are compatibility with surrounding uses as well as operational impacts um and that ties back into the uh relatively close uh location of residential the zoning is mixed use Suburban as I mentioned earlier which is intended to accommodate a mix of low intensity Auto oriented uses while supporting the gradual transition of the city's Suburban corridors to a mix of higher density residential retail commercial and other employment and service oriented uses uh the master plan designation is mixed employment and here are three policies that support the request in terms of the compatibility with surrounding uses there are several similar uses in the area um and the intervening Industrial and Commercial uses between the site and those residences to the West that you saw on the few slides earlier um you know those would help to buffer any impacts on the residential area um they are only proposing standard daytime hours of operation so you're not looking at anything in in evening hours uh and the only uh issue that we had was the visibility of the equipment from the street as you can see in the photo here um and that's due to the lack of screening so staff has recommended condition number five that would require the uh fence to be uh made uh U to to screen the the there's an existing fence to make it such that the equipment is screened as well as to add uh trees that would help buffer and and screen that um and that would also um minimize or that minimize the visibility of the equipment and ensure compliance with the accessory outdoor storage standards given all of those uh things the proposed use is generally compatible with the existing land uses in the area in terms of operational impacts you have occasional truck traffic uh light assembly activity that will go on or does go on inside the building uh note that all prep and assembly work uh as I said is done inside the bay doors which face to the South not to the West uh in the direction of the residential will most likely be open open uh during the summer in order to facilitate a cross Breeze to keep the employees cool however those bay doors will be closed and this is per the applicant during the process of rebuilding uh the hydraulic Breakers here are the recommended findings staff can make all recommended findings and here's the recommended motion and I am available for questions I will note that the applicant is here do you have a presentation uh yeah I do not just okay so but the applicant is here to answer questions if you have any bringing it back to the com or sorry opening up for public comment do we have any requests to speak forms I don't see any over here do you want to do disclosures first oh sorry I'll get the hang of this I don't know why I was better serving as a uh you know an interim for JD we'll set you straight yeah appreciate it so anyway we'll start with commissioner for disclosures uh commissioner valto no disclosures commissioner r no disclosures commissioner Basera same disclosures none commissioner Dracula no disclosures no commissioner villanua no dis no disclosures commissioner Armstrong no disclosures now we'll move to public comment I have no request to speak forms is anyone wishing to speak via Zoom so I didn't receive any request to speak forms and nobody registered for Zoom for this item we did receive correspondence and that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and has been entered into the record and no voice is there anyone in Chambers wishing to speak on this item seeing none I'll close public comment and bring it back to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or the applicant commissioner Biser sure uh question for Mr Jeff Jeff um condition five is for screening is that correct for adding some kind of screen is that is that the standard that we apply anytime there's like heavy equipment that's visible it's it's not so much the heavy equipment so much as it is outdoor storage so it it happens to be heavy equipment but outdoor storage requires screening and so the it's really that accessory outdoor storage that we are saying needs to be screened oh okay great y okay this one reminds me of one we had a few months back back off of gentry in Virginia doing something similar the snow cat there it is project and did we have them do screening as well I believe so yeah okay perfect I just want to make sure that we're being consistent yeah being consistent yeah I mean that's what we try and Screen outdoor storage and HVAC equipment and all those things from the street and from residential uses yeah awesome dig it any other questions from the commission do we want to move into discussion or I'll entertain a motion okay commissioner vinoa uh in the matter of case LDC 2459 based upon compliance with applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions listed in the staff report commissioner Dracula second we have a motion in a second all those in favor I okay uh motion passes unanimously good luck with your project thank you we'll close item 6.3 and move to item 6.4 case number lc2400 58 lowbar social all right okay Jeff Foster associate planner for the record again um so the low bar social case that I am bringing to you now um is for a 09 acre parcel on the north side of California between Arlington and Flint it's a couple blocks west of the Nevada Museum of Art as you can see on the screen there it's occupied by a single story building that uh sorry it's developed with a single story building that is occupied by a sandwich shop and a bar currently um there was an Su approved by the board of adjustment back in 2004 November of 2004 to establish a bar use on the parcel with operations between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in the previous Community commercial Zone um in July of 2023 the applicant applied uh to amend their business license to add a cabaret or live entertainment use which was not entitled in the approval from 2004 The Cabaret request was approved based on compliance with live entertainment use specific use specific standards and in April and May of of this year uh code enforcement logged multiple violations of the use specific standards the applicant uh subsequently submitted a conditional use permit application in order to operate indoor live entertainment until 2 a.m. and that is the subject of uh the request before you tonight the key issues are uh sorry actually I want to start with the surrounding land use so s surrounding land uses so to the north of the site is a salon to the east of the site is another Salon there's an office conversion to the west and there's a bar and multifam residential directly across from the project site as indicated by the arrow on the screen live entertainment is allowed in mixed use in mixed use districts as an accessory use per the live entertainment standards in code outdoor live entertainment is limited to 10 p.m. indoor live entertainment is limited to 11:00 p.m. and the doors um and windows shall be kept closed after 900 p.m. uh when indoor live entertainment activities are going on per code exceeding any of those standards um uh allows a condition or requires a conditional use permit process to ensure compatibility with the surrounding land uses and Zoning districts and those lead to the uh issues that staff look at in the staff St report including compatibility with surrounding uses operational impacts and uh Public Safety so for the zoning district is mixed use downtown river walk walk uh which is intended to support the downtown Regional Center with a particular Focus along the truy river Frontage primary uses include a mix of employment uses retail and cultural facilities as well as high density residential the downtown mixed use uh is the land use master plan land use designation and here are uh four policies that support the request so looking at the first of the three primary issues that staff analyzed is uh compatibility with surrounding uses starting off with what's on the site again it's a building with a bar and a sandwich shop based on information provided by the applicant the bar is about 1,900 Square ft which is a 1,200 ft uh uh first floor indoor area and then a 700t rooftop patio remember the request is for indoor live entertainment between 11:00 p.m. and 2: a.m. the outdoor live entertainment uh is allowed on the rooftop until 10 p.m. and the applicant is not requesting any variation on that they're only requesting indoor after 11: until 2 uh a.m. so uh the bar is an existing use and the surrounding commercial uses denoted on the screen by the letter c uh would of course not be impacted by the proposed live entertainment uh after 11: p.m. there are residential uses including 75 ft across the street there's a multif family development there are other uh residential uses denoted by ours on the screen sprinkled throughout the area and then the closest residential zoning is about 265 ft to the South you also have three other at least on this screen three other uh parcel zoned residential but again they're not um next door so to speak in terms of bars and live entertainment these types of uses are expected in the mixed use downtown uh zones again I've emphasized the indoor request as opposed to Outdoors after 10 and one of the comment letters that was included in the staff report and that you all saw was from a neighbor across the street in that multif family uh across California and that particular neighbor indicated that she felt that indoor live entertainment after 11:00 p.m. with the doors and windows closed would be reasonable so given all of the above the proposed use is generally compatible with the existing land uses in the area in terms of operational impacts planning worked with code enforcement uh business licensing and the city manager's office to create a unified set of conditions of approval for cases involving live entertainment and those conditions were released in June of this year um I believe this is the first application that has come to you since those conditions have been formalized typical operational impacts associated with bars with live entertainment include nuisance and behavioral issues cleanliness and orderliness issues as well as security and those are addressed by conditions 5 through eight in the staff report the stage where the indoor live entertainment occurs is located in the front Southeast corner of the building and that's directly behind the window in the picture on the screen um the other major issue operational issue that of course comes from live entertainment is noise right um again outdoor live entertainment will cease by 10 p.m. and the doors and windows will be closed after 9:00 p.m. when live entertainment is occurring again per code however note that again given the stage at the front of the building um and the front entry there uh which is the primary entrance and exit to the establishment it will be closed after 900 p.m. but it will be uh during except during Patron Ingress and egress um and because you can see that the right across from that door is open block construction staff included a recommendation for condition number nine which requires uh noise mitigating materials to be installed on the inside of the building at the front as well as on the inside of that concrete block wall to help reduce the amount of sound that would be coming out when the doors open during uh when patrons are exiting and entering there's also another a standard condition um that came from uh the what I mentioned earlier in terms of the the unified set of conditions and that's condition number 10 in the staff report which establishes that the administrator can require additional noise mitigation for ongoing noise issues um so if addition noise mitigation is not successful in addressing noise compliance issues moving forward that shall be considered cause for revocation of the conditional use permit I do want to note that the applicant has indicated that they do not agree with this standard condition but staff does recommend it as a hedge against the potential for future noise mitig noise issues to occur last but not least is Public Safety uh Reno Police Department completed a crime prevention through environmental design or seped report for this project in that report they indicated that implementing a comprehensive seped strategy will help ensure a safe and secure environment during extended live entertainment hours after or until 2 a.m. and that's consistent with other bars in the downtown Corridor they also indicated that by focusing on natural surveillance and territorial reinforcement lowbar can contribute positively to the community while impacting or sorry minimizing the risk of crime and note that the the security plan that is required by condition number eight will in part be reviewed by code enforcement and RPD um prior to the approval of that plan here are the recommended findings staff can make all recommended findings and here's the recommended motion and I'm available for questions thank you like we'll get a presentation from the applicant as well ice to see you again bro can if you if you'd like mine is brief I know Jeff Jeff did an excellent job and I want to thank uh uh Brook Oswell for the record I want to thank Jeff Foster for working on this with us and working through this with us he he he was fantastic in his communication and finding uh Solutions on this uh Brook oswal with the R Group just to go over that context and location uh Jeff did a really good job of that but uh California Street uh we're looking at uh Arland Arlington coming up through there and then the project site there it is as you can see we have a number of buildings uh in that general area I think some of the notable are Brewers cabinet which has an outdoor patio area uh we are seeing a a bar across uh and and next to the residential as Jeff uh mentioned they also have an outdoor area um and then looking at that arts and entertainment areas we have the the museum additionally along California we're seeing a number of other bars and restaurants retail and that are all really a supportive thriving little uh commercial area uh down down uh more towards Virginia we have um another another um music venue that is offering uh late night music and live entertainment in that and has a very similar sort of history of providing that music and entitlement history our zoning is that river rock that River Rock as Jeff mentioned is you know our downtown and our our focus on improving our downtown these areas are really important as they they have life now and that can spread out and continue to move through through other downtown area looking at our project site uh there is a project site there there is a building the building there is split into two there's two businesses running in that uh the low bar runs on the front portion of that with you can see the small uh upstairs uh deck on that and then there is a a a portion that goes along the side there's some seating there that also supplies uh the access to the secondary access that serves both buildings but also serves as a additional emergency access out through there and then we anticipate this area in the future if there are is queuing or anything uh involved in uh the security plan that they do have an area that they can move people off of the sidewalk and and prevent conflicts there uh just the history I tell you a little bit uh Josh Kellen is here tonight I've been working with Josh Josh uh came to Reno probably about s years ago uh opened up a coffee shop uh with his partner and a bar uh he's since uh developed several bars since then I think he owns uh the low bar that you here um uh blind dog The Hideout and uh poor devil so over a course of years he's established they're all very successful buildings um he's his has a long retention of sort of his employee um being there one of the main reason he in the service industry supplies Insurance to them so he I I'm saying this because of his involvement in our community and and and seeing that that development of business and especially in those areas the wells area Midtown area downtown area he's really invested in those areas that we have a lot of focus on uh continuing to grow and Thrive um he he's Al also a supporter of the live entertainment and arts we saw a little bit of dive and we lost a number of venues over the last several years this traditionally as many of you know has has been um St James Infirmary which was known for music in late night music then became uh The Matador and has become uh now lobar social that license never changed that always kind of go I think there was the assumption that that live entertainment was part and and and already approved through that grand fing and working with staff we we we agree that the uh conditional use permit is the correct way to go uh that is you know to provide that uh certainty to both the city and the public and neighboring properties but also to the property owner that he knows a set guide of rules that he's expected to follow and then he can follow those so we're we're in agreement with that we already have submitted a draft security and operations manual that does incorporate a lot all of the conditions that you you saw um related to that we are in agreement with conditions we do have a little bit of hesitance of giving an ad originally it was administrative control to revoke that but in working through that we would you know at cup process we understand the correct process and due process of coming back before the Planning Commission if there there were exceeding problems or something like that so we're in agreement with that just looking at the building itself you can see the large sidewalk uh Josh during Live Events has security guard s outside they keep the front they are pulling drinks from people telling people to move on quieting people that's part of his process it is a very small stage and a small business with a you know I think the capacity is 127 people at this point uh just looking at that master plan I think another important thing is is this is an area that's part of our downtown action plan and that really is how are we going to revitalize and continue to uh build our down town to be really that arts and entertainment place we want to be uh it's supportive of the Arts and cultures of that live entertainment uh Recreation entertainment quality of life uh we're looking at those mix of uses along there they all support each other uh a lot of the downtown action plan actually says some of the the restaurants and the bar establishments help to support that surrounding retail and and grow that retail in those area and I think we're looking at that inclusive community with the events and activities Josh is involved not only events of his uh himself but uh helping to support other uh area music events and other things like that with that um I'm available for questions thank you thank you Brooke we will now move to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner belto uh commissioner belto uh familiar with the site I've been to shows there before uh and I have I think that's it yeah that's my commissioner RoR Meer familiar with the site um haven't been there in its current iteration I think I gave public comment on the 2004 Su for St James nice wow uh commissioner Basera um overlaping disclosures as belto and rorer and I spoke with the applicants representative commissioner Dracula CH have also been a patron of that establishment and uh that's it commissioner villanua I have also visited that site had drinks there rooftop inside I um also read emails from residents in the area and that's about it thank you commissioner Armstrong uh I've patronized the site I've lived here for many years so I'm familiar with it um I read and received emails I spoke with the applicant representative um no more disclosures um I don't have any requests to speak forms uh for public comment do we have anyone on Zoom we don't have anybody on Zoom we did receive correspondence that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and has been entered into the record we did receive a voicemail that we need to play for you as well go ahead says page Hall LBC 24-58 low bar social entertainment from 11:00 p.m. 2 a.m. are you guys nuts first you weren't living down there now you want have live music till 2 a.m. in the morning that is ridiculous it should not be passed okay that's it for voicemail and I think I don't think we received anything else okay fair enough anyone in the Chambers wishing to speak on this item seeing none I will CL close public comment and bring it back to the commission for questions commissioner dracul thank you chair uh question for Jeff I believe the B to the South is K do they have any similar cup or do they do any live entertainment right now good question I don't know Brooke do you know the I'm not familiar if they do or not I know they have an outdoor area but um don't know the can you come up to the microphone please I don't know the time specifically but I KN that I do know that they have live entertainment there yeah yeah consistently too and it's it's nothing it's nothing it's peaceful and they're good at what they do and do they have it past 11:00 p.m. I guess it was a I I don't know the specifics of it sorry yeah Mike do you happen to know I I'm not I don't know the specifics but if if they did they they would be put through the same process okay I just didn't know if we've awarded them a cup or whatever or had not to my knowledge but I apologize that I didn't fully investigate that no you're fine yeah good thank you question bet I had a similar question about the loving cup which has also had a music venue for a very long time are they allowed to have entertainment till 2 am definely they okay there's a there's a variety right of of of uh live entertainment Cabaret uses that have been looked at over the years um in the whole downtown area um and part of what the uh Endeavor was to put put together a unified set of conditions was recognizing that things had been done kind of half-hazard Peace meal over the years in terms of different bars having different allowed hours and different nights of the week and different conditions and so the the whole Pursuit was to try and formalize things at least moving forward we of course can't go back and retroactively change any entitlements along those lines but at least moving forward all live entertainment uses will be looked at um uh if they're proposing to exceed the the code allowed standards with those unified set of conditions may I ask one more question would this be the first with this sort of adaptive code enforcement condition the condition in which you can not only revoke but change as time goes on that's my understanding that this is the first uh application that has come forward since those Unified conditions were proposed in June of this year so yeah this is the the first one I believe on Reno ax um there was a similar condition Mike I I do believe yeah Reno ax had a very similar condition to this as did I believe lowbar social or low bar not low bar I'm sorry a wrong day um dead ringer yeah four streets yeah so commissioner villan NOA thank you um what days of the week do they currently have authority what is it till 11: right now for live music so by right they're allowed to have indoor live entertainment until 11:00 p.m. correct and it doesn't matter what day of the week correct yeah any day of the week okay and and what is being proposed same till to any day of the week as well correct yeah yeah there they did not stipulate a particular date range and in fact I know the applicant can speak on this but there was some indication that part of their business model is not looking at the traditional Thursday Friday Saturday night operate or uh uh entertainers but uh you know being uh having the ability to accommodate entertainers on some of the other nights of the week and therefore they wanted to have the ability to have all seven nights so so I'm I mean it's a great bar I'm in favor of live music I love live music but we have to balance that with the type of community we want to build in Midtown and downtown and it's we we have to strike the right balance um so I'm concerned about having and and I get that it's inside but we we have a development that's brand new a few years old right across the street and this was you know there was the impression that there was the time that was in place when the bar was there at the time that this place was being built a few years ago um and so I'm not opposed to extending the hours but I think maybe we can put some restrictions maybe 2:00 a.m. Thursday Friday Saturday or maybe midnight across the board I just feel like we're trying to strike the right balance and to just peac Mill give certain bars certain dates and times and it it it's it's going to become problematic I can very much see it being a problem as we move forward and continue to do infill and Revitalize um downtown Midtown may I may I comment on that okay yeah question I okay so um in terms of standardizing allowed days and hours across the board um I.E another condition of approval that would be part of those unified uh conditions of approval that came out in in June of this year that is certainly a potential possibility um it's clearly up to this body if you guys would like to uh provide uh limitations on the hours uh earlier than 2 a.m. or which days of the week or whatever else so um staff is not recommending that but it's clearly up to you if you would like to to to to um restrict things further I would invite the applicant to address the kind of the business model approach as that might help inform your decision yeah if you have a follow-up commissioner I was just gonna say it seems like a good opportunity for the applicant yeah yeah I I was going to take his suggestion it your discretion so yeah please go ahead if you'd like to the app would like to speak to the to the business model Jos may be able to speak about it better uh so the 2 am uh provides that flexibility one of the things that Josh is doing is he uh originally out of San Francisco and he's been able to connect with these bands who normally wouldn't stop in Reno and are are traveling from the bay to Salt Lake or to Portland and he's he's been able to get them often times those are during the week um they're often coming in or traveling so they're getting in later so they may play a little bit later show but that's his model is to be able to capture that and offer that entertainment within our our area and so that's why he's really asked to have that flexibility additionally he's supportive of a lot of uh local bands and stuff that may be playing on a a weekday night if he if he has the weekends booked and so he just wants to be able to have the flexibility to book and and that flexibility to do that and so we really felt that 2 a.m. consistently gave him that we wouldn't anticipate that every night's going to be till 2: a.m. but he does need that flexibility you know if a Monday show or Tuesday show he doesn't know at this point so that's part of his model is to bring in traveling bands can I speak to yes please Jos with with respect it's still going to be a busy bar of course let me turn my mic on please state your name for the record uh Josh owner of low bar uh with respect it's going to be a busy bar regardless of the late night activities that you're you're conceiving with live music um only thing that you'll be doing is restricting art essentially we're still going to be a bar it's still going to have people there um so we're just going to be dictating how art is going to be going into the night we have a jazz night I'd love to have that jazz night go till 1:00 in the morning um also with respects we were under with respect we were under the impression that we had being that the venue is 15 years old now we've all grown up around it um we were under the impression that we could go later already so the violations that he was speaking about earlier we were confused we just didn't know um as soon as we found out we reached out to code because code has made mistakes with my other establishments in the past and we had a meeting which ultimately led to here so we want to do everything right so what I don't want to do is pull the plug on some cat at 1:45 in the morning who's having a nice you know Jazz session up there because I know two o'clock's around the corner or something like that or earlier if that makes sense we just kind of want to give the freedom a little bit and at this point I feel like we were with that misled uh um ability to have music we we were under the we're not going to change anything we haven't done anything that has been too alarming we've had a year basically under our belt of being a successful bar there's been no issues there's been no cops called the the noise complaints that had happen are frankly just from being on California they're going to happen regardless of that rooftop area it my point is music isn't the concern here and that's and I think that's what we're going to be restricting and not allowing does that make sense my am I explaining that well enough apologies does that help answer your question yeah but it doesn't really I mean strike the balance that I'm trying to what what would your ultimate goal be after 1:00 so it's not so it's the days the week I mean because I'm trying to be considered of the neighbors um and we want to have a vibrant downtown where we have where you know you guys can coexist because we obviously want want bars we want a successful bar we AR complaining right now on Mondays already and we've had we've been playing music th far you know for the past year we have a show tonight in fact so the neighbors aren't complaining about that what they're complaining about is the rooftop during the summer on the weekends it just happens to be busy I've sat outside myself with bands playing and really tried to see if I could hear them and you know put myself in the neighbor's place and I can hear conversations on the roof more than I can the music that is downstairs with drummers and you know everything going at it is it the music that's pushing people to the top or does it because I know I hate to say this but when I'm there depending on the music I'm going to gravitate to the top because it's loud and you know I'm trying to have a conversation sometimes you want me to find another reason for people to come to my bar after you restrict this one I mean you're just going to give me hurdles so I think that's I think that's an unfair thing to do again you're just restricting art and then finding me in a place where I have to find another reason to drive people to my my business we do everything that we're supposed to do we don't have music up top or we keep restrictions we keep people nice we're we're the best entity that's been there frankly we really try to be respectful of the neighborhood so again I think I think and then let's just say you choke me out of there and we we don't like it we sell it you're going to find another person here that's probably not going to be as considerate or even like the last couple of bars that were very problematic the only thing that's changed in that neighborhood has been that apartment complex and and I feel bad for them I do but they're going to go away in two years as people are going to come and go we're here we want to work with you we want to do everything right but we don't want to restrict arts in that in that manner we don't want them to go away we want again we want to it's a twoyear living exper you know what I mean someone's going to move in they like hey I don't like you they go away so the uh my next question is why 2 am what's what's what's why is that we haven't gone past 2 am or to 2 am. during the week at all I just I'm afraid of having you guys come in and be like it's 115 and then I get another complaint uh or a coach thing um it's it's just yeah and it's you guys got also got to picture the place there's not the DJ kns are vinyl kns you know it's not like techno it's not dead ringer it's not those places that you had mentioned earlier so the 2 a.m. is just because first off it's Reno and I think we need to have a better night life and Monday night is a industry night where people get off of work uh from the bars and that's their night to go out and why do they have to get restricted till 11:00 um while the rest of the world you know gets to go out on the weekend um but again it's not it's really not the noise complaint so even if we are doing it till 2: or 1 or 12 the idea of them hearing it isn't the problem you're just concerned about the people showing up which I don't think we can take into consideration because any bar should be busy or can be busy and we shouldn't penalize them for that sorry yeah and I I think with the conditions that are coming in from staff that took into consideration that 2 am and so putting those into place kind of sets it there there are noise standards and there are those and they have to meet those so that doesn't you know they'd have to meet those at at one they have to meet them they and those are are are required so that you have good neighbors and their good policy having worked with Josh and and working on the security plan with him there are a number of measures in um implemented or will be implemented through that or that he is already doing that help to ensure um the the cohesiveness of that neighborhood and making sure that that they're not you know aren't through the live entertainment and once again we're looking at that live entertainment portion of this so did you have a followup commissioner uh commissioner Dracula we'll work our way down all right okay uh commissioner dra uh commissioner villain away but good call on the days I guess I didn't connect that immediately appreciate you bringing that up um I guess before the owner came up I'm not trying to be too much into discussion but I I feel like uh condition nine and 10 kind of covered what you were going over with and I get it there's got to be a balance and it's hard to tell them just Monday or no Mondays no Tuesdays um but I guess what's interesting is what you're telling us it's less about the noise of the music I've been there I've stood outside in the front um security is usually at the door closing it when people come in or whatever it's never just held open and Loud um but so your points are valid and I guess I feel like condition n and specifically 10 um really are the hey let's test this out owners of aware of the situation um if we do have neighbors that are unhappy hopefully we hear from that and we start to work on some level of mitigation don't ever take that as we're trying to choke you out and end you but we do got to play the game a little bit and and deal with our owners our renters across the street in the multifam and that one uh resident on the other side so my opinion I'm ready to support the project specifically because I like condition n and 10 seem to make me feel like okay we're we're working on this I want to promote live music it's a great bar and esta thank you for coming to our community and investing in us and uh adding in you know definitely kudos for giving you know your service employees insurance um which is incredible so anyway I kind of slid into discussion because I was going to ask something but it all changed so I'm good commissioner velto looks like you're eager maybe yeah I am uh super supportive of this proposal I think this location makes a lot of sense to have live music we should have opportunities for live music every every night of the week um I personally don't like condition number 10 I don't like the idea of giving it to an administrator to potentially change what I think is good for the city um I understand it but I just want to express that I'm a little concerned about that being caused to revoke it when I think this is a downtown area that is going to have a lot of live music or should have a lot of live music and if you go down to picnic or you go down to other places in the area you're going to have live music or loud music but having been to this location if you're standing outside you can't really hear the music I think it's pretty well insulated and the way the venue is set up it it makes sense um so yeah I'm I'm definitely supportive of of this proposal did you have a question no it's a question I just wanted to piggy back off what uh commissioner Dracula saying I apologize for not not asking a question fair enough so we're we're slipping a little bit into discussion so do I have questions or are we ready to be in discussion okay commissioner viser you have a question um no no yes I do yes I do I do I do um well Ju Just Just for a historical reference uh the old do grenade used to be open 24 hours a day in that same Corridor um my question is well two two parts one a suggestion one for Jeff uh great job I just think in the future um maybe just having some comparables I know you all mentioned both you and Brooke that ke's across the street and some other places across street but they're not really Apples to Apples if they also don't have a cup to compare to right so maybe just if there are some other comparables like chro or Reno Public House or some some that have a cup until 2 a.m. that might kind of help us right uh my actual question to S to to kind of segue is more on the ventilation so if if yall are required to close windows like at 9: or 10:00 and Hot August Nights doesn't it get warm and are are we not worried about people passing out we just no Ser no it's a good question because it 100 degrees in there it'll be terrible so we just what was it 3rd of July my HVAC went out and me and the gentleman who was fixing it sat up there for about eight hours in the sun fixing it I still got a nice little glow from it today uh just to make sure people could go into fourth in July and that weekend cuz once once it went out I was I was devastated essentially so it's nice in there right now if it goes out happens to me I have an HVB going out at uh blind dog thank gosh I have two I already picked a swamp cor but this isn't more or less because I I want people to come to my venue and not be miserable uh if it's 120 degrees in there they're out of there we lose money so um yeah well like commissioner um dracul mentioned we don't want to choke you out and I also agree with commissioner villan NOA though we got to strike that balance and we'll find that balance I appreciate the subject it's a very sensitive thing and I you guys have to get that balance I get it I just obviously am on the other side of it where I I know we try really hard and I think we do very good work and I think our other bars speak highly of that and I know this is only a year new but I get that you have to make a a call now for future stuff I just would hope to be on the positive of that as opposed to the negative if you know what I mean so and I think we will and if I see you guys in there now I really have to do good work because I want you guys to come in there and have drinks and you know don't want to disappoint you yeah well well like I mentioned in the prior um item before us I try to look at it from how can we help the application be better yeah right so let's see if we can find something there sure I'll save my other thoughts for discussion great thanks commissioner commissioner RM did you have a question okay uh commissioner villo do you have followup questions yeah I do have a question I just want to understand something a little bit more you me uh staff mentioned the where was it I think it's one of the conditions you mentioned the what was it like the adjustment what you know you guys are trying to sh you guys are trying I can't talk you guys are trying to uh create some more standardization and you mentioned something about modifying as needed can you touch on that a little bit modifying what modifying the time or modifying the uh ability for these folks to continue having music until 2 amm what were you referencing is it a condition I think what I was yeah Jeff Foster associate planner I think what I was referring to was in response to your earlier question um it it if if your request is to have a unified set of operating days and hours for live entertainment uses moving forward if that was the request I was saying that perhaps the standard set of conditions that came out in June of this year could be looked at to add more specificity so that future requests uh were were standardized if that wasn't what you were talking about I think it was more towards what uh uh commissioner velto mentioned about the administrator review how does that okay so in reflecting on commissioner vta's concern on condition number 10 specifically is that the one okay yeah so condition number 10 noise mitigation okay condition number 10 is a uh kind of a fail safe stop Gap if if the uh applicant um or any applicant that this condition is applied to um if there are ongoing noise issues and through uh operative uh efforts to mitigate those noise issues if those don't solve the problem in other words if you have a bad operator and there and or there's just physically no way to mitigate the issues we have to address them and so a conditional use permit that is granted um has the ability to be clawed back not just if there's one issue or you know kind of a thing but if there's an ongoing pattern of of violations code enforcement nuisance type issues then the administrator has the ability to to bring this back bring the entitlement back and say I actually kind of agree with commissioner VTO I don't know that that's appropriate I'd rather it's a due it is a due process issue than it's a property right so I don't like I think they would have to go through the whole process and come back and and go in front of city council I don't think it's appropriate for an administrator to make that decision um so I surpris agree with commissioner belto uh don't no no [Laughter] offense um so if we're going to do it we do it and then if they're violating then they go through the due process procedures just like anyone else with the standard property right would go through um so that you know that's my position on that but thank you for clarifying commissioner B did you have a question question I do chair go for just just one to follow up on that um kind of topic maybe for the administrator is that just an a broad pronoun for staff or would that' be you Mike I'm not sure well I guess in this case technically it would be myself or or the assistant director or director of development services what what what would be the criteria for future complaints in this kind of situation like the way it's worded it's pretty broad right and that's probably what makes folks uncomfortable uh myself included because I would just be like well that's interesting you know typically um these will come to us through code enforcement if there was a complaint um the intent of that condition is that we could work with the applicant to come up with some supplemental mitigation to address the code enforcement complaints and bring them into compliance um if if that condition is removed which is within your purview to if you choose um it would go through code enforcement and ultimately lead to either fines or revocation of their conditional use permit through through the process that exists in code um so I think the intent of that condition is to allow some ability for the city to work with business owners to bring them into compliance without having to just revoke their conditional use permit that's the intent but you know if this board feels that that's not an appropriate path forward it's certainly within your PR to make amendments to that condition or remove that condition and just a followup question Mike I I I remember a little while ago when the a was before us um there was folks asking us about a decibel level and the response I think at the time was that it's downtown Crank It Up essentially no no decibel level kind of threshold right is that the same thing in this Corridor is that downtown is there no decibel threshold for what constitutes loud or not loud I don't think there is a desal level in the downtown core no there's not I had to kind of wack my brain here on Co okay that's my that's my one concern it'll kind of segue into I guess discussion is just um um I have a hard time just what's allowed to my neighbor to the left may not be allowed to me or to the neighbor to the right and so we need something to gauge that so we can strike balance in good faith not a question for you bud just thinking out loud commissioner VTO I have I do have a question this time U my question is to you Brooke do you uh um I am inclined to not want to want to approve this without condition 10 is there any reason why you would want us to keep condition 10 I may be overthinking this but is there a reason why that may be less likely to result in an appeal therefore you would like it or is there any I I I believe the mechanism is already in place um through through as Mike defined so we'd prefer to have it off obviously it's the perview of this but um that would we just believe there's already a mechanism to kind of work through that and through that code enforcement working to to meet the conditions and through that and that's our opinion on that thank you commissioner draulic okay piggy back on that Mike so they go through code they get a complaint they go through code what I liked about 10 is grounds for the administrator require additional noise mitigation so that's what I liked about it it's like hey what you did in condition n didn't work out super good what's going on have a communication great can we try X Y and Z and they're working with staff to be going through that is that the same process with code to some degree and I I think really to be to put it in kind of a real world example if if if it did come up and I'm not saying it ever would but you know there's not every bar operator is we have better actors than others um if it came back to us and for example the applicant said you know we're not going to do it we're not going to do any of this then it would essentially revert back to the to the standard process I just feel like we're talking about the same thing 10 and working with code am I wrong what is there difference it's very it's I think more of a chance to try to let's work this out before it gets to that next level 10 yes puts it that way and if we don't have 10 and they go through code it's harsher and quicker is that what you're telling it very well could be yes oh okay I was just going to comment are we in discussion now sure uh well really quick before we go to discussion I have more okay let's finish questions and we'll move into discussion so commissioner Villa goe yeah yeah I have a question um for I have a question for staff I just need some clarity on some things before I make it a decision because I because I am concerned about the standardization I I do want to see you know this area progress you know progress and and do well for everyone so my question is is there in this area where this bar is located is there a noise threshold and if they go above that they'd be in violation of code AS is today even without the changes I mean I get the 11 o' but I mean just in general is there a noise variable threshold um in place no no the the the city code is admittedly lacking uh and everyone knows that admittedly lacking on defined noise standards okay so in in whether it's Geographic areas or or or whatnot so I believe that's something that is being looked at kind of in a broader manner um it's obviously not going to be brought to bear tonight but it is something that is on the radar to be looked at you know in a in a in a more defined way to reduce this ambiguity that we come across every time something like this comes before you so if we Grant this now with this you know as broad as it is now and then the the city puts something in place we can't retroactively come back right you mean in terms of oh so let's say a 50 decel limit got put in place no it no it would it would be allowed to exist as is it would yeah but if we restricted this and then the city put something in place they could always the applicant can always come back and extend and go beyond what they've already been entitled to they could come back and so for example if we restrict this we pull back a little bit we don't give them the request as it's as it's been made 2 a.m. okay noise or excuse me band inside till 2 a.m. in seven years they can come back and ask that it you know that they do get that Authority sure they could always they could always request an an amendment to the nothing limits them right they can come back in the future whether or not the city decides to address the the VAR the that noise variable sure issue yes if condition if if situations change and and and something happens where they want a condition amended they can always come back and make that request okay and I'm going to try and make this question clearer than my last questions have been so there's always an opportunity for them to get more than what they get you know say they walk away with today the applicant can always come back and get more later but we we as a commission can't take away as easily as we can give I don't know how to rephrase that does any know anyone know what I'm trying to say guess is the answer yeah right so if we so if we Grant a broad application it's harder for for us to pull back yes okay yeah if we give a little now the applicant can always ask for more later I see your point and yes okay thank you I thank you for bearing with me pivot to discuss I think we're ready to Pivot to discussion yes uh commissioner velta would you like to start discussion yes I would like this business to succeed I would like this to be a successful Endeavor where we have more music would propose us approving it modifying condition number 10 I like the idea of encouraging cooperation and working with uh code enforcement but I don't like the last sentence that says if any such additional noise mitigation is not successful this shall be considered cause for revoking the permit I don't like that sentence so I'd want to get rid of that sentence and just say that if there are future noris compliance issues there will be grounds to require additional noise mitigation which sounds like it is the code requirement uh or maybe there'll be like an interactive process where they talk about noise mitigation but I don't want this to be a tool that people who don't like this can use to try to shut them down commissioner rer yeah so um the zoning in place is downtown you're on the north side of California that is in essence the same zoning that we have here and I'm listening to many cars drive by through multiple walls so I mean the hypocrisy of this is getting a little I don't know in my opinion overboard I find that condition 10 is not easy to enforce and I just listen to The Canyons about enforceability and having language that has to be enforcable so I move to strike condition 10 altogether and it's a sink or swim situation if you're a nuisance then you're going to get your permit revoked it's as simple as that and I don't even know why we're talking about 2 a.m. in a 24-hour town all I'm persuaded commissioner Dracula your mic's on did you oh my bad yeah I'm I'm good with commissioner ry's suggestion I want to see him succeed and I think we're were kind of maybe the right word is just digging into the semantics the way I read it I feel like it's six to one a half dozen to another and I'm good with 10 being gone helping this gentleman you know continue contribute if you get noise complaints and you're not trying to mitigate them and you're showing bad faith then it's probably not the right bar own at this point so as long as you're playing ball I don't and we have a mechanism for Neighbors who are constantly complaining for months over years and then there was an issue and we don't need to see that that goes to stff so I'm good with that if we want to move forward with striking 10 commissioner M did you have a comment I did go for it great thank you um I'm on board for for those recommendations I did like 10 on the ground that it seems to give teeth to to maybe uh vill noa's uh sentiment about what we have to take back a little bit if folks got out of hand but I also want you all to succeed uh I do believe most people are want to play ball in good faith um I don't know I was just kind of thinking with 10 originally I was thinking that it might be good to say uh well we use that for the first month to see hey what days of the week might you get some complaints right maybe Everyone likes every day but Wednesday or Thursday or whatever right and then we actually use data to say oh here's a trend maybe these days we cut it back a little the rest of the days they're good to go right um if there's like an appetite for something like that great but even without it uh I'm on board with that recommendation from RoR Meer and belto commissioner Villa thank you um so I agree with removing number 10 um but think the Nuance here and nuances are important because I think the Nuance is important because unlike with Hot August Nights which is you know once a year this is asking for 20 you know or seven days a week till 2: a.m. every day not once a week in August not you know one time in June or one Saturday a month it's Monday through Sunday till 2 a.m. and so if we're you know I want to see The Spar succeed I don't want to see them go under I I love live music I think they have a lot to offer the community but we you know we're up here because we do have to have a voice for the residents as well it's and and you know in businesses and everyone equally so I think we do need to pay attention to the nuances and not just give away um just write a blank check essentially um anytime someone comes up and is like well my business needs this great you know uh we all need a little bit of something but we we got to work within um you know we we got to work within the community um and our neighbors and and so I think it's important to consider the Nuance in this particular case I think 2 am's fine I would restrict it to maybe Thursday Friday Saturday um or if you want Monday through Sunday may be restricted till midnight um I just think it's a little bit too broad um given that there are currently no standards in place with the city there's nothing stopping the applicant from coming back in a a couple years and asking for more once we have maybe a better understanding of uh what the noise variable ordinances might be at that point I'm just trying to I'm just trying to find the right balance here and I think this just goes a little bit too far um for present day maybe not in seven years maybe not in five years maybe it'll be suitable at that point but I think for right now it goes a little bit too the request is a little bit too far I think if we can just clot back a little bit I'd be happy um so maybe we can do you know I'm open to to suggestions but I just think the way it's written now is just a little bit too broad thank you commissioner VTO I mean we talk about this being like oh they can just come back later on but that's an expense like this is a business we want to succeed it's not an easy process to just say try this out for a few years by the way we're handicapping you and your ability to succeed and then come back to us once you have data and hire someone to represent you go through this process like this is not something we should do to a small business that we want to succeed if I thought this were line for the area I think I'd be more inclined to agree with you but given how I view the area I think that we should do what we can to let the business succeed so I I just I guess that's where I'm at here I don't necessarily think we should give them a trial run and then force them to come back in a few years it's just costly and we're putting up blocks to them succeeding as a business I was just you know that's not the intent is to cause you know to create but a lot of things cost um and sometimes that's the downfall of trying to strike the right balance um you know nothing's perfect um and when we're trying to do the right thing sometimes that does involve cost um and I think I I think you know the the option is more than fair to just say hey maybe Thursday Friday Saturday till 2 a.m. or maybe till midnight but we we did hear from residents we did hear um from folks who were concerned about about the noise and I'm not saying um no it's a hard no I I I think we just need to consider you know the circumstances and I'm looking at you know the areas around here um and it's not like it's right in you know on Virginia Street it's on California which is a mix of businesses I think it's reasonable to say let's just pull back a little bit to make you know people work Monday through Friday um and there are residents here so that's my position I I want to I want to say yes so if you guys just give me a reason to say yes and just work with me I'd be happy to make sure that this application has a unanimous vote but just the way it is now I can't commissioner Biser sure thank you chair um I I think what's hard for all of us here I'll speak what's hard for me is that we don't have a standard by which to all go off of here uh I I think we all talked about this decibel level threshold and I think if we had that in our toolkit it would be a lot easier for us to to kind of all be speaking the same language and start at the same place and with that maybe it's a question to our fellow administrator as far as like do you know roughly when we might be getting uh or or when that conversation might be happening with other players and folks this is an issue that staff is ongoing is addressing as we speak speak so we're working with with Comm with the community with the city manager's office with business license with code enforcement getting everybody's input um that's where these kind of new standard conditions came from it came out of that process but admittedly so that it's it is definitely a work in progress okay great thank you and so my next question is I was going to say Brooke because I'm actually confused because Brooke used to be on this team over here and I was forget who was presenting what but I think Jeff mentioned that um to commissioner V noa's question that if we did have a kind of noise Threshold at some point in the future that we couldn't apply that to this condition correct that we could not yeah be grandfathered it it couldn't right it wouldn't unless unless so then my question is couldn't that just be a condition now like hey in the future if we have a a um kind of noise threshold then you all just have to play ball and that's what takes place could we not do that I think and I'm going to get the City attorney to confirm this that you potentially could craft a condition that said any changes to Future noise ordinances included in Title 18 shall apply I I don't know if I'm not sure if that can be applied or not ier just trying to explore options here that hopefully there actually is a noise ordinance under Title 18 180414 8 titled noise noise at residential property lines measurement uh of noise shall be made at the residential property line with the sound level meter and octave band analyzer meeting the standards prescribed by the American Standards Association so there is you know a code on that and it's 49 decip and but that's it goes to the residential property line so there is you know some guidance on that thank you Mr Hall how does that apply to this application before us Carl correct me if I'm wrong I believe that's under residential adjacency and and residential adjacency applies to non-residential development adjacent to residentially zoned properties and unfortunately depending on your perspective the the the residential use across the street um would be considered adjacent but it's not residentially zoned there's no technically there's no residential zoning adjacent to this property okay so that that that that standard unfortunately doesn't apply okay so there the question we don't have a Beyond residential adjacency we don't have a broader noise uh Paradigm okay great thank you Jeff and Mike so may I get clarification on that that if a future noise ordinance comes for commercial or mixed use properties uh zoned properties that everything is grandfathered in then what would be the point of the ordinance that that would that not apply to every universally par like no I think it's a taking so what would be the point of it I don't do is is that not a take defer to legal on this and if a a new noise ordinance were introduced the the city council or were adopted city council if they wanted it to apply to existing uses would have to um explicitly make that ordinance retroactive it has to be explicit in the ordinance itself thank you should a noise ordinance come forward in front of this body well that would be a strong recommendation from policy thank you yeah I I just just to jump in on I guess the the discussion piece I think we should be careful about being very normative and prescriptive about what we would like to see or what could be this is a very kind of specific matter um and so I would just suggest that we stick to the findings that we have to make not necessarily be prescriptive over and above what we're looking at I don't I don't think that's particularly helpful or constructive so that would just be my contribution here I'm I'm ready to make a motion chair uh any further discussion seeing none I'll entertain a motion in the matter of case number LDC 24-58 based upon compliance to the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report except that condition number 10 shall be deleted and I can make all the findings R Myer second we have a motion in a second uh should we do a roll call vote for this one yeah let's do that thank you on just a second okay draulic yes Armstrong yes Basera yes ryer yes VTO yes villain NOA no no okay motion passes um 5 to one and then if you could just read the appeal process into the record for anybody out there that disagrees with your decision can someone sorry I don't see it on the agenda can I top of page two page two of the agenda appeal process here oh sorry it's in the small apologies for that okay the appeal process any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Reno city council by the applicant the mayor or a city council member or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction an appeal together with fees must be filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk thank you chair can I comment since we didn't get to do comments after uh yeah if you have a final comment we can do that and then we'll close the item just to clarify on the no I I am in favor of expanding you know the allowability of the live music I am just I can't get behind you know a peac mill way about going you know going about this there's you know there's lots of businesses and I just feel like it would have made a lot more sense if we could have just streamline this and have everything consistent rather than having some bars with some Authority and other bars with different Authority um but you know maybe at some point we can get there and we won't have to have this conversation again um but thank you thank you commissioner with that we will close item 6.4 and move to item 6.6 case number lc24 d63 Calvary Chapel zone change a presentation from Nate thank you this one's probably a little less controversial for the for the record Nathan Gilbert principle planner uh presenting a zone change request for a Calvary Chapel zone change the subject site's a 2.16 Acre Site U zoning map Amendment request from industrial commercial to mixed employment the current master plan is mixed employment it's in the industrial Logistics employment area um and uh the proposed zone change to mixed employment would bring the site further into conformance with the adopted master plan which is for that um through that light industrial um area so the zoning is uh conforming to the mixed employment master plan designation and is adjacent to mixed employment and public facility zoning in the area um it would maintain most indoor and light industrial uses by right more intense industrial uses would require additional review um or are prohibited all commercial uses are maintained like the office retail and restaurant and the existing uh Calvary Chapel Church significant expansion of any commercial or industrial use requires a site plan review you can see development standards um are pretty much the same the main difference being um an an additional 10-ft height under the mixed employment for development potential uh staff has reviewed the findings and this again this brings the site into further conformance with the master plan designation and we recommend approval thank you thank you Nate give have a presentation from the applicant good evening once again Brook hwal rep planning uh I am representing kls and Jun potic is so um this is sort of a short and sweet uh proposal on on the zoning it is zoning request uh looking at moving that from the industrial commercial to the mixed employment uh just to get an idea where the site is off Mill Street if you go down Edison way you can see the site there an existing building existing parking you can see through the parking area that we have large drive aises and that kind of wrap around through easements and and access through the site a closer view and this details more the amount of parking required parking and stuff currently being used as a a chapel use um they're they're intent with the mix uh proposal of this zoning um for their intent you have to look at it at a zoning level but their intent is to provide uh Elementary uh opportunities which are um with their chapel and their church and those are allowed within the me but they're not allowed in the IC running through this really quick currently industrial commercial as you can see surrounded on both sides on the other all three sides on the other side we have the mixed employment with the public facility looking to change that to the me zoning uh which is adjacent uh directly adjacent to the uh uh east of the project this is where I think it it it this is unique and and this request brings it as Nate said closer into conformance with the master plan so our as we're look whoops we're looking at our master plan our master plan is me over that entire area as we noted before we have we have the IC and we have the me so IC is currently uh if it exists it conforms under me but you couldn't go in and request IC under me so some of the other things are an SPD A PUD Po and so this em uh zoning request is is appropriate in that that situation just going through the the analysis that was done and working through staff um the the appropriateness of that that mixed employment and allowing those schools religious and institutions is is what's driving this our compliance with our review actions and procedures mitigating traffic impacts like I said you can see that the parking is there we have those large Drive AES Associated and dealing with the traffic and any sort of uh impacts we'd see there uh provides a safe environment and racal phasing it is built they are you know we'd anticipate adding that proposed use our findings um they are expanding that use to K through six uh there's 60 students with approximately 10 employees that'll be from 7:30 to 300 p.m. Monday through Friday uh pick up a drop off areas are located there as I indicated through the the site plan and with that I'll conclude my presentation available for questions thank you thank you Brooke we'll bring it back to the commission for disclosures commissioner Villa sorry Villa um no disclosures commissioner Villa no disclosures commissioner dracul no disclosures commissioner baser read and reviewed the material commissioner RoR s commissioner VTO same disclosures commissioner Armstrong spoke with the applicants representative read and received emails um familiar with this site uh we'll go ahead and move on to public comment have no requests to speak forms do we have anyone uh wishing to speak on Zoom no we do not have anybody on Zoom we did not receive any emails voicemails um and no request to speak forms anyone in the chambers is wishing to speak on this item seeing none we'll close public comment and bring it back to the commission for questions of the applicant or staff commissioner Basera I'm actually ready to make a motion if y'all are no issues there does anyone have a question or I think it's fantastic okay but move forward with I don't want to just jump ahead if anyone else has question go for it anyone has questions now is the time otherwise proceed with your motion commissioner all right fantastic um in the matter of LDC 24- 63 Calvary Chapel zone change based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to recommend that the city council approve the zoning map Amendment commissioner Dracula I second have a motion in a second all those in favor hi all right motion passes unanimously good luck with your project we'll now close public hearings and move to item s trucky Meadows Regional planning liaison report commissioner valto yes we had a trucky Metals Regional planning uh meeting uh commissioner Armstrong is now the chair of that esteemed uh commission so he's dual chairing for us um yeah that's all I have to report all right thank you commissioner we'll close item seven move to item 8 staff announcements yeah I have actually a fairly exciting announcement tonight uh at the last city council meeting the council appointed a new commissioner Christina Del VR I believe she's actually listening or watching on Zoom this evening so uh she will be present with us at our next meeting on the 21st so that's some exciting news um also at our next meeting uh staff will be bringing forward a training Angela and her team are working on that now along with a new um Planning Commission U member handbook that will kind of kind of replace the somewhat outdated not outdated but for like better term boring materials that we we provide now with some kind of oversight of the roles and responsibilities of the Planning Commission so um what's the date on the next meeting Sor I believe it's the 21st two weeks from today um as far as actions taken by the council um at their last meeting they upheld the planning commission's recommendation for approval of the Chisum mobile home park master plan Amendment and zone change um as I mentioned at our last meeting the ranch Hera um Village 7 tenative map that this board approved was appealed um the council upheld uh the planning commission's recommendation with some added conditions related to uh fencing re retaining the on-site statue um and that sort and uh existing preserving existing mature trees but so that that project will move forward and that's all I have great thank you thank you Mike we will close item eight and move to item nine commissioner suggestions for future agenda items do we have any suggestions uh I saw commissioner Basera and then commissioner Villa sure I think I was just going to ask Mike if for that training would it be possible to invite our city council member lison to attend as well so we can all get to know that person and figure out what that partnership is about we can certainly extend extend an invitation if you like yeah I just learned that we have one so figured it wouldn't hurt commissioner villan NOA so I think there's a there's a company a consultation company that uh the city hired to work with the city on improvements to the shy River and you know I think they're working with a couple consultants and I would just like presentations from some of them regarding kind of ideas that they're th throwing around suggestions for um how they plan to move forward and and just any input that they that the city's received um so sure let that's let me reach out with public works and some of the other departments involved and we can certainly get get a presentation put together for you uh any other suggestions commissioner Basera sure uh not a suggestion but maybe a a segue into public comment because I'm not sure where it falls in but really it's just they wanted to salute JD for his leadership this past year so thank you sir and the staff and this fellow body CU I think I just completed like a year along with RM so just wanted to say thanks all and and the attorneys you all are great too flies by all right well thank you commissioner we will close item nine and open item 10 public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment I have no requests to speak forms I did not receive any correspondence no no um voicemails and no one on Zoom seeing no one in the chambers I will close public comment and move to item 11 adjournment so moved okay we have a motion second second uh all those in favor I soie I you're stuck with us now Harris e