e regular meeting of the reeno Reno City Planning Commission today is Wednesday November 21st 2024 and we are at the City of Reno Council chamber we'll begin with agenda item one the Pledge of Allegiance commissioner baso will you please lead us United States of America thank you commissioner we'll close item one and move to item two secretary can we get a roll call please Harris Armstrong here Carrie rer here Manny vasera here Christina delvar here JD draulic absence at this time Alex belto here Sylvia Villa here we have a quorum awesome thank you we will close item two and move to item three public comment this item is for public comment on any action item or any general public comment members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the zoom link provided on the agenda specifically https colon SL links. reno.gov SL capital p Capital C1 1-21-24 it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to 3 minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter not agendized for possible action on today's agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded 3 minutes if you are an attendee in the zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time please raise your hand lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues uh we did receive correspondence on this item that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and entered into the record great thank you I don't have any uh sorry I don't have any requests to speak forms do we have anyone on Zoom wishing to speak uh no one has raised their hand on Zoom great uh do you have anyone in Chambers wishing to speak under General general public comment sorry chair we do have someone on Zoom who has raised their hand sorry I'm going to pull that back and defer to the zoom attendee uh whenever they're ready uh Patrick when you're ready please state your name for the record you'll have three minutes yeah hi Patrick Coleman for the record um I just wanted to comment around the uh planning changes I think it's called a uh a codee cleanup of some kind with with Title 18 that's been ongoing um i' I've read that and i' I've seen other updates to Title 18 and in in all the other updates that I've I've looked at and seen over the last decade in Reno it's it's pretty clear what the rights are for existing entitlements um when I when I read through this one I don't know if it's just that it concerns my business and other people's businesses and in terms of live music and rights to grandfather entitlements for bars and restaurants but it it's unclear to me and I think from articles in the news um around if we lose those entitlements if we sell our business or if we stop operating for 6 months to do a remodel or any other items um it's just just very unclear and I think that within planning and business license and the city and all the different entities involved it's also unclear from from their perspective from my and others conversations with them um as to what what this new um Title 18 means for people who have existing entitlements and rights and from just anecdotally speaking to other bar and Nightclub and restaurant owners um some are required to get some form of conditional or special use permit even though they've been operating others are not um I would just ask that especially if this is supposed to be a cleanup that it's defined much better and that within the city um the enforcement is and the you know function of how this is actually executed is very clear especially between the different departments uh when it comes to the difference between business license code and and planning code um it it seems like there there's a lot of confusion even within the city departments and definitely us as lenses and small business owners um you know there's there's places that have been open 50 plus years and people go you need a special use permit or a conditional use permit to the same things you've done for the last decades and others open new and they're told they're in different districts I don't know that I have an opinion on it um other than it's been very confusing um to a lot of different business owners and to different people within the city the the other thing I would say when I when I look at the language um the in terms of who's Grand who has an entitlement or not um there's conforming and non-con in if you have the entitlement already you're conforming but in other ways you're non-conforming Theus to be on the business or land owner to prove that they have the entitlement um even if they haven't ceased operations it's sir can you please wrap up your about 25 seconds over time yeah no I'm I'm done that's thank you for your comment do we have anyone else on Zoom wishing to speak uh no no one else has their hands raised okay uh we will bring it back to the chambers is anyone in Chambers wanting to speak under general public comment at this time seeing none we will close item three and move to item four uh sorry move to item four which is approval of minutes uh we'll start with item 4.1 approval of the Reno City Planning Commission regular October 2nd 2024 meeting minutes commissioner rer a motion to approve we have a motion do we have a second commissioner second looks like we got a second either way we have a motion and a second all those in favor I I any opposed hearing none motion passes unanimously we will close item 4.1 and move to item 4.2 approval of the Reno City Planning Commission regular October 16th 2024 minutes do you have a motion commissioner viser uh motion to approve commissioner R second you have a motion and a second all those in favor I I I I any opposed hearing none motion passes unanimously we'll now close item four and move to item five public hearings and we'll start with item 5.1 LDC 25-3 2400 West 7th Street looks like we will get a presentation from staff hello thank you chair members of the commission for the record my name is Leah pakati and I am an associate planner with the City of Reno development services this evening I am presenting an application for a major site plan review and tentative map at 2400 West 7th Street the subject site is located just north of the 80 um it's near the intersection of Everett and 7th Street it is a 3.72 acre site and today's request is for two things one a tentative map to allow for a 28 lot single family residential subdivision and two is a major site plan review to allow for cluster development here you can see the zoning District of the subject parcel there in the middle of the screen it is a single family residential it does allow for eight units per acre and as you can see uh the majority of the surrounding area is also that same single family designation key issues that were analyzed during this request were the overall site design compatibility with surrounding developments and uses master plan policy guidance public utility infrastructure drainage and tree preservation so regarding the overall site design these lots are going to range from about 3200 square ft to about 5,000 the average lot is going to be about 3700 Square ft uh traditionally in the sf8 we would be looking at lot sizes of somewhere around 6,000 or 7,000 square ft which is consistent with all the surrounding development this uh site will have approximately 8,000 square ft of landscaped common open space they are proposing four parking spaces for unit that would be two inside of the garage and two in the driveway it also does allow for on street parking the width of that CLD deac there is wide enough to allow for that so staff didn't see any concerns with parking on this particular case um a homeowners association or equivalent will be created to maintain all of the Landscaping in these common areas additionally um um these two areas right over here are going to be landscaped common area and they're going to put a couple of benches in there I will also have a landscape Parkway along 7th Street which will incre increase The Pedestrian safety in that area there's also a currently a bus stop out front and that will be temporarily moved for for the building and then relocated there's been a lot of concern that that was going to be removed and I just want to assure everybody it's not going to be moved the applicant has requested to wave the internal landscaped Parkway and what you see there is uh on your screen is no internal landscape Parkway and we have asked that they attempt to save the viable pine trees and you'll see a condition of approval in there that requires them to be uh checked by an arborist and determine their viability these are pictures of some of those pine trees that are existing on the site again regarding overall site design we're looking at twostory homes with a 28t height um those homes will range in square footage from about 1,800 to 2400 Square fet these uh three designs that you see up here were provided in the application however they do not meet the ground floor interest or the standard Street image features of renom Municipal Code so we've worked with the Apple kin and they've agreed to add some windows into the garage doors to increase that uh ground floor interest and then they're going to incorporate two of the following which would be varied setbacks varied front setbacks enhanced Landscaping in the front yard uh paths to the front door or additional structural articulation and whichever they decide to implement here would be a part of that final design regarding compatibility the applicant has offered a 16 to 22t buffer adjacent to Lots 1 through 10 and a 5ft buffer adjacent to lot 11 we have asked that they fully landscape those rear yards along that western boundary and you will see that there is a condition of approval in there for that and we have asked that they apply additional Design Elements to the rear facades of Lot 1 through 10 so that it doesn't end up just being a a a blank wall on the back of that home that then the people along Everett are just looking into a a backyard that's devoid of anything also we've limited the hours of construction which is typical with anything that's adjacent to a residential zoning District there's a lot of words on this screen and this is a master plan guidance there's basically a couple things I want to point out here and one is that the master plan is designated this area as single family neighborhood so you'll see that SF designation on some of the paperwork in your packet also per the structure plan of the master plan it's located in a central neighborhood and 7th Street is considered a neighborhood Corridor so it has some additional policies and goals that we'd like to meet for that so everything that you're looking for on the you're looking at on the left hand side that's kind of in a green color there those are all the master plan policies that this uh application fulfills and everything you're looking at on the right hand side in the red are ones that it doesn't fulfill so this was a tough application to review especially when looking at master plan policies and whether or not it conforms to our master plan and um a lot of what it doesn't conform to is that that neighborhood character or the general guidelines for the neighborhood so it's regarding um parking we'd like those to be located behind the primary structure garage orientation should be away from the street uh we like to see gr gradual transitions between the higher density residential developments and these neighborhood in these neighborhood corridors uh we want to see more outdoor Gathering spaces uh Courtyards Community Gardens swimming pools things like that and um again Transitions and the preservation of lot patterns as you could see in that zoning map I mean this is consistently 6,000 7,000 square foot we don't see anything like this in the neighborhood but the flip side of that is that it is currently an underused property this we are looking for infill in this area and Redevelopment um it they will provide a tree canopy uh we have asked that they Orient the buildings along 7th Street towards 7th Street which you saw in the thing that they're not they're oriented inward but they they would be should this be approved with the conditions of approval um it does offer some other housing options in this area so lot of competing policies on this one and then I'm going to do something that I don't normally do which is I'm going to go through all these findings and we have a lot of findings in this particular case so first set of findings is going to be our general review criteria and this is looking at consistency with the Reno master plan and staff reviewed and analyzed all of these things and what we've basically come up with is that it is consistent with some plans goals policies and strategies and we tried to weigh those competing policies is it compliant with Title 18 yeah it meets the the the minimum RMC standards so in other words if this came in for building permit right now and and no discretionary review was required it would probably be approved it does meet those uh does it mitigate the traffic impact yeah they're going to put the left turn pocket in um the project is really going to have a minimal impact on the level of service in this area uh 28 28 homes is minimal compared to what we have in the surrounding area and I do believe that it's going to provide a safe environment that landscape Parkway will improve the environment for pedestrians and people on bicycles in that area here we have the tentative map findings um public services and utilities are available yes it's an infill project all the services and utilities are available again does it comply with the master plan renom disle code and Nevada revised statutes kind of um it complies with some of the master plan policies it meets the minimum RMC standards and it does comply with Nevada revised statutes major site plan review findings is the design compatible with surrounding development well the design of the subdivision is functional um however the product itself does differ from the surrounding development is the design consistent with development standards again if they send it in for building code are people our planners who review these type of applications would probably approve it is it reasonably compatible with the surrounding development as conditioned well as conditioned add additional mitigation has been recommended including a buffer and additional landscaping and enhanced design standards so it might uh it's not going to be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare I I can't imagine that once developed noise smoke odor dust vibration illumination and other hazards would be present should all be mitigated now here's the tough ones these are the cluster development findings so there's three findings for cluster development and the first one is that the clustering proposal compared with a more traditional site development plan better attains the policies and objectives of this article such as providing more open space preserving existing trees and vegetation coverage preserving view corridors preserving sensitive environmental areas such as stream corridors slide areas wetlands and steep slopes well you probably realize that none of those things exist on this side um however the applicant has asserted that the increased buffering on the West Side May preserve the view corridors better than traditional development with no Buffet second finding the clustering proposal will have no significant adverse impact on adjacent Properties or development or the applicant has agreed to adopt appropriate mitigation measures such as Edge matching Landscaping screening illumination standards and and other design features to buffer and protect adjacent properties from the proposed cluster development while the applicant has agreed to adopt a buffer ranging from 5 to 22 ft plus the 20ft rear setback um but just for comparison um buffering between varying sizes of single family residential Parcels would be 30 ft plus the residential yard setback and number three the clustering proposal meets all the other applicable requirements set forth in this article or other applicable ordinances or regulations well again it complies with some of the master plan policies it meets the minimum Renown municipal code standards and it complies with Nevada revised Statute that completes my presentation recommended motion is on the board and as always I'm available for questions and the applicants representative is here to follow up with a presentation of their own thank you thank you so much looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicant all right thank you uh Eric Hasty for the record I'm with wood Rogers I'm representing the applicant amh um I'll try not to be too repetitive um but I'm going to go over some of the some of the issues and the things that we faced and and kind of go give you a little bit more detail of how we came up with the site design um so just to give you a little bit more context about this site um this site does have does have two access points on uh 7th Street um it's currently a church and so there is some traffic and everything that goes on and access in and out of the site but a majority of the parcel is uh currently undeveloped um being this as a infill site um we understand that there is going to be some sensitivities especially with surrounding neighbors and so we were taking that into consideration from the design standpoint and before we were doing our prior to our due diligence uh something that we were we were keenly aware of and wanted to make sure that we incorporated that into design um another portion of this project is the Highland ditch which runs along the South part as well as the Eastern portion and then again there is that RTC bus stop which is shown there on the blue dot so again we are propos we are requesting a tenative map for a 28 lot subdivision uh the cluster development is to reduce the lot size um to allow great um the density of the sf8 zoning designation and we are proposing 1.32 Acres of common area so looking at the surrounding um area this whole area this this this project site as well as the surrounding neighborhood is zoned sf8 so they have the same zoning designation um and within the sf8 zoning designation you're allowed to have eight dwelling units per acre and with this project size that goes up to 20 units so with the infill site especially within the McCaron ring trying to create density in these infill sites um we were trying to to get to achieve the the greatest density that we could however with the um City of Reno code in the SFA zoning designation for single family detached Lots 6,000 square feet is the minimum lot size and that just doesn't come out you have to modify the lot standards in order to get that density even if you're going with the minimum lot side so looking at what we're proposing compared to what um City Areno standards are um there's there's the table that's on the left it shows in blue the um City of Reno standards and the ones that are in green that are uh in bold there are the ones that we are asking to defer it and so reducing that lot size from 6,000 squ fet down to 3,200 ft is mainly just taking the minimum lot width of which would be a minimum of 60 ft down to 35 ft all the other setbacks are will remain the same and this is to help keep conform conformance with the neighborhood um we also agreed to reduce the maximum height from 35 ft down to 28 ft and then when looking at the sf8 zoning designation and what is allowed within uh City Areno code you know there's also um single family detached at 6,000 square ft um per lot and then the single family attached single family attached would be able to go to tenative map and it's the same thing you're you're modifying the lot standards when you're going into single family attached so looking at some of the the reasons that pointed us to the cluster development um looking at the the unique site features of the site again I I kind of highlighted the Highland ditch that's there but if you also um understand that within the sf8 zoning designation cluster development is allowed in in in any area um you on the outskirts or town in infill everything cluster development is allowed within the sf8 zoning designation and the the cluster development will allow the lot modification of lot sizes so some of the un unique site features that are specific to this site are the top the topography um as well as the the on-site drainage issues so some of the the Western Lots currently drain onto the property and then the property itself the project site actually drains into the Highland ditch currently um with future development we would need to accommodate for those and we would not be allowed to um charge onto the Highland ditch um also to take into consideration is the slope the the the high point is ever a drive if you look to the west and it goes generally from west to east so the lower end is sloping towards Highland ditch and so when we're proposing this development and you're taking into account view sheds which view sheds are taken in account to you're not view sheds are not protected in city code but when you're doing cluster development that is consideration of the findings and so looking look at considering view sheds the farther to the east you can put buildings then the lower they will be from the project the properties to the West so proposing looking at what we have proposed um along the western boundary we do have to put a sale in there to pick up for the lots that are draining onto the site there's also power lines that are on the western uh area so um we have to take into consideration the utilities that are in there and then between lot or to the W of lots two and three there are also some utilities that still need to be um maintained and so with this Swale we can't just simply discharge this into West 7th Street because typically you would be able to do that with any development however in West 7th Street there is no storm drain infrastructure and so we need to retain all the water on site and so everything that falls on this including the the the drainage from the West is going to be retained with these Retention Ponds that are going to be part of the common area and we will no no longer be discharging to the Highland ditch again when considering view sheds um again we were trying to be sensitive to to the adjacent neighbors and understanding that these are proposed smaller Lots however those that 30-foot buffer is not applicable in this case because it's sf8 zoning designation adjacent to sf8 zoning and so what we tried to do is is give as much buffer as we could between those lots so that they have one property owner behind them right now that will maintain that will continue to be the same with this this will just be a common area open space and we'll give them separation between the two backyards so if you had a traditional development uh single family detached you know you would have the typically you would have backyard sharing from those current residents to the West um we we did provide a buffer so that there would be some some uh separation there and then with the additional setbacks of the rear lot and in combination with the buffer that allowed us to put those buildings farther to the East and drop them down a little bit farther in elevation so again Leah kind of went over this so I don't want to reiterate anything here but we are providing an additional buffer and when you can take that in consideration with the uh back the rear yard setbacks the homes are proposed at about 37 ft for a majority of them along the western boundary this is almost exactly what is on the western homes right now so it's really although there's um you know there's common area and rear yards the setbacks for the homes are are very similar to what's currently being there are located on the houses to the West if we were to do this as a traditional detach development you would only have to offset 20 ft from that property line if you were doing it a single family attached um this would be a sidey yard setback So based on the height of the building it could be anywhere from 5 to 19 ft along that western boundary and then again putting the pl the houses farther to the east East allows for a greater uh separation and elevation and so that and in combination with actually grading down below the existing grade will drop these houses lower than the existing residence um and allowing a greater separation and so even with two story homes at 28 ft a majority of these residents will be located lower than the adjacent residents to the West so onsite circul and traffic again this is this is not a very big traffic generator we didn't have to um have to do any traffic studies with this um but taking into consideration the trips that are generated with a Church use and especially on Sunday um this is this is a pretty insignificant impact to West 7th Street um we are pro proposing to do four unit uh four parking spaces per unit even though code only requires two um sidewalks will be um provided along the not not only the streets but the um the private drives as well so that people will be able to walk to their houses and the bus stop will still remain on site um it will be temporarily Lo relocated during construction and then put back on site based on rtc's feedback um again as Leah kind of pointed out here we are we have agreed two additional Design Elements for these buildings especially those plots 1 through 10 that are along the western boundary and along West 7th Street there um I would just like to highlight to the conditions that we have agreed to and the applicant has agreed to with this uh typically the City of Reno doesn't require um any um any Landscaping in the rear Lots um these are these are conditioned so that they are going to be landscaped at the same um same standards that the common area would be landscaped and so this equals one tree every 300 Square ft and six shrubs and then along Lots 1 through 10 the we have agreed to have those be um evergreen trees and then we're actually putting an additional Tree in there so there'll be three trees per lot on Lots 1 through 10 to help kind of screen um this from the adjacent residence to the West we the are existing trees on site as Leah mentioned and we have agreed to um consult with a an arborus prior to any grading or um any any further construction to see if we can relocate those trees or um preserve them on site but alt together um with the requirements and the conditions um we are proposing a minimum of 117 trees on site with all the common area rear yards as well as the street trees and the front yard landscaping so I'd also like to point out to the applicant um went to the NAB meeting and at that NAB meeting that being an infill site they realized that there was going to be um a lot of comments in from the surrounding neighbors and so they hosted in a neighborhood meeting um in September um we also heard additional public comment um at the PC meeting where this item was continued um through we believe that through the conditions as well as um working with City staff we've really met the um the concerns of the neighbors as well as um agree with the the findings in the staff report and also indicating that the staff report is recommending approval and just want to highlight again the conditions of approval that we have agreed to so that's my presentation thank you I'm here to answer any questions if you guys have any great thank you for that we'll bring it back to the uh commission for disclosures commissioner villanua commissioner villanua I read emails no other disclosures uh commissioner Basera boy howdy let's see uh it's part of my running route I called and spoke with residents I met with the applicants representative and I reviewed the material commissioner rer I reviewed the emails I visited the site and I spoke to the applicant's representative on zo yeah commissioner VTO I live uh like a quarter mile away uh so familiar with the site I spoke to the applicant representatives and I read and received emails commissioner delvar I am familiar with the site and I read the emails commissioner Armstrong I'm familiar with the site and I read and received emails um that will move to public comment uh I actually have a handful of requests to speak for do we have anyone wishing to speak via Zoom uh we do not have anyone on Zoom with their hands raised great I will move to the request to speak forms we'll start with Liz not you'll have three minutes please state your name for the record whenever you're ready Liz not good evening I live at 2620 Everett Drive since July 1st of 1976 I am speaking in opposition to the wood Rogers plan for 2400 West 7th Street I appreciate your allowing my neighbors to speak at your meeting in October since Public Notices had already been sent for this case the commission had no discussion nor took any action that evening the wood Rogers map shows our existing neighborhood back fences are nearly double the length of their proposed ones my home is 18878 square ft my parcel is 7,841 square ft my home takes up approximately 1/4 of my parel the ratio is 1 over 23.95 when my neighbors spoke to you last month I thought they had clearly stated that the wood Rogers plan was unacceptable was Tim Smith at 2575 wrong when he stated the density of the houses on this plot of land looks nothing like the adjacent neighborhoods was Barbara kosa at 2585 wrong when stated cluster designation under the city of Reno's municipal code is being used for this project when it is clearly not compliant was TJ Harvey at 2605 wrong when he said that a cluster development is meant to protect a natural resource or a unique site feature was TJ wrong when he said that it is impossible for the proposed Sou West common area to have a single access point shown in the plans as a 5-ft buffer and is to be designated as a drainage Channel and is American Disabilities Act accessible and is to serve as the buffer between the property lines for 57 years a church has graced the sacred land with Cemetery to the east have the church and its property remain as it is means natural habitat will continue to live in this place and at peace finally have they made enough sufficient changes sounds like they may have I don't know if not please deny thank you for allowing me to speak whoa I have five seconds well done thank you all right oh my phone next we have Barbara carosa hello my name is Barbara carosa I have a short but very impactful statement the proposed development has been a concern for Neighbors since its initial presentation relative to the designation stated in the application of a cluster development it just does does not fit within the parameters of current municipal code and that's the key to this whole situation guidelines and it exceeds standards this fact alone negates the development proposal this glaring inaccuracy is a concern that this designation was ever used to begin with and is the fact a petition by Property Owners was initiated which all of you have in your packets concerned by homeowners for the proposed development has been very vocal in Prior meetings which have been cited meeing the NAB meeting and the October Planning Commission meeting relative to municipal code and we need to focus on that we all live by rules regulations and laws in our everyday lives this is no different presentations pointed out in public comment by homeowners stated facts for cluster recognition which again the development lack you either meet the requirements follow Municipal codes or you don't thank you thank you next we have TJ Harvey good evening Commissioners my name is TJ Harvey 2605 ever drive speaking in opposition to West 7th early on in this process Miss picot told me on the phone I agree this does not meet the criteria of a cluster development since a statement the revisions of this plan have been minor I've spoken to developers in the area who've also said this is not an eligible for cluster when you read the definition of cluster development and look at the proposal it's clear it doesn't meet criteria I keep being told there's a gray area there's only a gray gray area if you allow it I've been in law enforcement for over 15 years 10 years as a peace officer sworn to uphold the law Reno Municipal cold is law cluster developments are intended to project protect a unique site feature or natural resource the definition has a few mandatory components protect something provide open space and provide a uh more gradual transition to the unincorporated County public lands there is no unique site feature here the last component transition to public lands is never addressed the land is bordered by homes a canal and a cemetery and the open space was only added as an afterthought as and has no usable access point wood Rogers has attempted to state they're eligible for development because they are protecting viewsheds and providing common open space arguing the unique site feature that you are protecting is viewed is laugh laughable first what views the views from the property or the views from our homes the ones wood Rogers told us we're not entitled to the views from our property are clearly gone or from the property are clearly gone because that's what 28 28t twostory homes will do and the views from our homes well I've used a 28t tall ladder at the elevation of the Highland ditch the lowest point to confirm that all the city views will be erased um it's also funny that wood Rogers says they're preserving views through setbacks and Grading down the original plans haven't changed here actually they been reduced the setbacks if preserving viewsheds was going to be your main contingent point of approval the ne necessary component of a cluster development shouldn't that have been mentioned in the original plans it's not mentioned because they never intended to meet the definition of a cluster development sf8 zoning requires 6,000 ft Lots these lots are as small as 3200t the other com component never originally addressed was providing usable common space after they were called out in previous reports for missing this element they have added small areas near Lots 10 and 11 if you review the submitted topa mats which were on the screen and drainage reports you will see both designated areas are major points of runoff from the Western properties also far away from the two Retention Ponds the runoff actually channels through 5ft boundary between uh properties near lot 11 this is also the only access point to the common area previously designated as a drainage Channel condition six of approval States this must be an ADA accessible path to the common area how can this 5-ft area function has a major train drainage Channel and Ada accessible path it cannot at the end of the day it should be painfully obvious to anyone looking at the project that only the only reason wood Rogers has implemented cluster development is simply to reduce the required lot sizes mandated by sf8 zoning Roger says uh sorry their motives are clear this is not about protection or resources or providing space as intended by cluster development it's about packing more homes and Zoning permits again there are no natural resour resources viewsheds or unique site features that qualify for protection there's no gray area Commissioners as I understand to rule for the findings means the Planning Commission has made a decision based on established facts to justify the findings wood Rogers has not you please wrap up your comments you're about 25 seconds over wood Rogers has not established the facts they're asking you to complete their work for them um they have not justified this development and neither should you thank you next we have Ashley Harvey uh my name is Ashley Harvey I live at 2605 Everett and I'm speaking in opposition of the development I want to start by saying I Echo all the sentiments of the previous neighbors I do not think this meets the criteria of cluster development and I do not think it should be approved as is I would like to reiterate that code is Law and passing something because of a perceived gray area will open up both wood Rogers and the City of Reno to potentially legal action however my primary focus today is to shed light on the character of the developer and wood Rogers it is my firm belief that they are using Scare Tactics bullying tactics and being deceitful in an attempt to get anyone in their way out of the picture as I've told my husband several times they're leaning into the better the devil you know than the one you don't what do I mean by that they're painting themselves as people who want to come in and better the community they've stated that they want to help with the housing crisis when so many cannot afford to live with all due respect creating 28 overpriced rentals in a neighborhood known for being a working class doesn't really help anyone I know who's facing an economic hardship but on to the specifics at the school board meeting they LED with slides showing that with a quick zoning change another developer could come in and put an apartment complex or duplex this was a scare tactic and I'll admit that it worked several of the neighbors talked about standing down after that that was until I spoke with the associate planner who assured me that every body would have to jump through hoops that code is there for a reason also if um if the views were going to be preserved why are we acknowledging that the trees for the homes 1 through 10 is there as a buffer as well um also in regard to the view sheds that only applies if we're standing on top of our roofs and I don't know how many of you stand on top of your roofs frequently several weeks ago a neighbor saw a gentleman in the field he went out to speak with him and the gentleman said that he represented the developer and reiterated his desire to want to work with the neighbors he told this particular neighbor that they were going to put singl story homes along the western boundary which was ironic because this was a few days before a hearing in fact that same neighbor is not here tonight because he still firmly believes in the word of that gentleman this has very clearly been proven to be not true so what's the devil that I should be afraid of of in closing I would like to say that uh where morality might be gray code is black and white thank you thank you for your comments next we have Tim Smith uh Tim Smith for the record I want to start out by saying I am not anti-development uh you may have picked that up that is my bread and butter of how I make a living but what I am for is honest and fair development which I believe this development is trying to avoid um initial review of the plans it does not appear to meet the definition of a cluster development it comes across more as a use of the cluster development as a loophole in order to build more rentals rather than to provide any benefits to the community such as the view sheds uh things like that cluster development in the municipal code States cluster development is encouraged to support the protection of sensitive natural resources viewsheds or other unique site features promote fire safety within Wildland Wildland interface provide opportunities for shared common open space protect documented Wildlife corridors and provide a more gradual transition to the unincorporated County and public lands of the items listed in the code the plan does not clearly meet any of these viewsheds are not preserved as the entire lot is being utilized there's no natural resources identified that they wish to preserve no old growth trees although they did mention that I'm not sure any of those can be saved based on the layout of the plan um there is no gradual transition to unincorporated county is in the middle of a neighborhood that was established 50 years ago there is no Wildlife Corridor protected on the lot and no Wildlife concern the open space provided is not usable by anyone in the area um there are Retention Ponds or between the property line and The house's back fences I don't know about you guys but I don't like walking between people's back fences um if this development is deemed as acceptable as a cluster development despite not really falling into the definition per code they are required to adopt appropriate mitigation measures these are defined as Edge matching Landscaping screening illumination standards and other design features to buffer or protect adjacent properties from the proposed cluster development these mitigation standards are not well defined in the cluster provision of the code as clear as clearcut standards as what those are but I would defer to the single family adjacency standards to get a more clear picture of how transitions are completed uh the developer would say that this section does not apply since there's no change of zoning district from development to development which would make sense if you followed the basic development standards by its very nature the neighborhoods would match here is not the case as parcel sizes are smaller rear yards do not match each house on the existing neighborhood would now have two houses behind them um uh I would argue that since in the cluster provision there is not a clear standard in buffering we would uh but the word buffer is mentioned we refer to other areas of the code which would be in the jsonc standards the code gives three options parcel size matching yard matching and buffering right now they have a 17t buffer uh at least behind my yard from rear property line to rear property line the adjacency standards code requires 30 ft fully landscaped 100 feet if not landscaped currently yards do not match and the parcel sizes are not the same if I could just have 20 more seconds 30 more seconds these are standards by which the development should be held to it should be a point of approval to meet one of the transition requirements everyone needs to follow the city code AS is meant to protect both residents and set standards to keep the city consistent approval of this development as it is currently drawn would be a disservice to the existing residents and have a significant impact on the existing neighborhood thank you thank you uh I actually have no more requests to speak fors is anyone else in the chamber wishing to speak on this item you interested can you please fill out a request to speak form and hand it to our secretary and then come up and state your name you'll have three minutes speak and then give it after if you like you can fill it out after it's okay um hello my name is Ariana and I'm we live near the part where you're trying to build the houses I don't know exactly the location but um just a warning there are cats back there living in the shed so those animals either need to get go find a permanent home because they I don't cuz maybe I feel like they they're like Strays and there's lots of them like lots and I don't want to squirt sand hand sanitizer in their eyes so can we either remove the cats or let them stay in their natural home very very well done thank you so much for your comments oh uh anyone else in the Chambers wishing to speak on this item seeing none we will bring it back to the commission for questions uh commissioner rorm um yeah I have a question for Leah please um thank you for your very well detailed presentation I'm curious if a major deviation would have been an option given the constraints or a variance given the constraints like the ditch and the retention you uh thank you commissioner rer for the record Leah pakati uh you cannot ask for a major deviation from lot standards or density and same thing with the variance was the only tool I suppose we could call it that the cluster in this case it could have been a cluster or they could have come in with an SPD like a specific plan District where they basically wrote their own zoning code for this site were there other site designs that could have met the code intentions um the site design that you see is the site design that was submitted thank you commissioner bah thank you chair you didn't have to look over you already knew um Leah I guess I'll just piggy back off of uh commissioner rm's questionings kind of to start is there a comparable project or two that we can reference while we're having dis discussion and deliberation um that's very similar to this project well we have other cluster developments that we've done um a a good example of one of the those is uh at the intersection of Moana and plumis um I don't know if you guys are familiar with that but there is a cluster development there that has some really cute little houses that that they front plumis with the backyard is the garage and you enter from the backside so it in that particular case um those retained that that good Street characteristics they fit in with the neighborhood things like that okay great and I have some other I mean there's other cluster developments in the area but I've never seen anything that's really comparable to this generally when I'm looking at cluster developments excuse me I'm looking at a much larger parcel with actual clusters of development throughout that parcel and in that case that would be when I look at that and and look at preserving view sheds and things like that I'm generally thinking you know if you have a large site and you have a a slope on one side you would apply the cluster development and the hillside design standards so that you could stagger homes in one section of the parcel while retaining the rest of it as an open space concept that's generally what we see with cluster development great thank you I think you answered my question um I was looking for like a project that we can see one to one or that's in parody with this one but it doesn't sound like that's really the case correct correct okay so my followup with that is that um chapter 18 9204 of Reno's Land Development code defines cluster development as you know but for edification moderate density attached or detached development that is designed to protect sensitive areas to allow for a common open space so what specific benefit does this project offer to current residents in the broader Community as being presented that's a great question for the applicant sure yeah so i' um you know with the cluster development I think the unique site feature that we are are protecting is the fact that you know even though this is an infill site um we do have the the the properties to the West draining in on this and this is typically not what you see um especially when you see an infill site and the fact that West 7th Street does not have uh storm drain facilities and that we cannot drain into the Highland ditch these are the unique site features that we were accommodating and also um protecting as well with uh storm water and storm water quality and again flowing you know when when you have all the the reason why you're not allowed to to discharge into the Highland ditch is because when you have this multiplier effect of all these different um um areas draining into the ditch you know this could be a a potential issue for Downstream people Downstream of of the Highland Edge and so that is the unique site feature um that we are we are accounting for and and protecting okay great um I will pause there I have plenty more but make space for other folks we'll uh we we'll Circle back um commissioner villain W do you have any questions yes thank you I have a question for the applicant um the roundabout or not roundabout but the C toac excuse me the cesac emergency vehicles are there any is there any concern there yeah so Eric Hy for the record um so uh Reno fire was able to to review this and because of the length of the culdesac um from what I understand there's no need for secondary access and it's designed to be able to have allow accommodate for uh on street parking as well for a firet truck to be able to get in there turn around um the um private drives are are also designed to City Areno fire standards as well as far as the length of them um and being able to access for emergencies okay and then one of your visuals during your presentation you highlighted two um entry points can you pull that yeah for the existing site so for the development is there only going to be one entry point yeah there's only one entrance it's just that single that single Street um is designed in City Areno standards um and so it's just a it's basic basically a CAC that that will lead into this um it's going to be in alignment with the street that's directly across from uh 7th Street okay and again no issues with emergency fire hasn't said anything there's no issues um the my other question sorry I wrote this down uh oh the rear of the houses in the development and then the the rear of the adjacent rear properties is there going to be a spa is there is there a fence behind and then another fence or are we going to have a gap in between the two fences now so there there's the the you know the property's existing uh owners existing fence and then um there will be a grade separation and then um a little sale and then there will be a fence and then along the northern part a fence for a new fence for the new lots and then on the northern part there's a bit of a wall as well there so they will be will be fenced back rear yards I'm sorry to say that one more time the the rear yards will be fenced yeah but there's going to be in between there's going to be a gap between the fence for the developments prop for the property development homes and then the fences of the homes that are already in existence so there's going to be a gap right or yeah the I mean almost like as as it's proposed right now yes so I don't know if I mean the the applic will would want to make sure that that's as secure as possible and that's going to not create any safety issues so um I think that's something that they will probably consider going forward but as we're proposing it right now there's no fence showing you as you're proposing it right now there's no I'm no gate or fence between okay so it is just going to be okay is that normal um just from a design it seems odd that there there would be that but not it's not a big deal I'm just just curious um okay I do have questions but I'm going to let others speak yeah fair enough let's go to zoom uh commissioner DVR commissioner velto did you have any questions at this time yeah this commissioner belto I have a few questions for the applicant um I want to go back to commissioner B's question because I I too want a better understanding of the the clustering um development analysis so I I'm looking at the site plan I'm looking at the proposed um project as it's laid out trying to understand how clustering uh better obtains preservation of trees or vegetation or preserves envir sensitive environmental areas um do you have any opinion as to how clustering as applied here would preserve existing trees it does look to me looking at uh the aerial view that the way the project is outlined that there are some trees that will be maintained through the clustering but can you help me understand kind of how how you're viewing this uh compliance with the clustering yeah so so those trees that are that are on site along the western boundary air Casey for the record again um those trees that are on site along the western boundary um which which could potentially be be preserved um we we had the reasons why we're not calling them out as being preserved is because we need to one verify that um they are viable and two that Envy energy will allow them to to maintain but we are you know there is a condition in there to um have a certified arborus to go out there and identify all the Tre trees that are on site and identify any that are um going to be viable for preservation and then I when you were answering commissioner basser's question you were talking about drainage and can you kind of talk a little bit more about how clustering development finding relating to drainage trees Etc what is the analysis necessarily for how it uh affects drainage so with with the drainage it's it's kind of a a twofold right with with the on-site retention that you have to provide um because of the limitations of draining into the Highland ditch and everything you have to to um also that that takes up a lot of the development um and of of the developable area and so in order to be able to provide density in this infill site as well as provide for those um account accounting for those uh factors with the Highland ditch that's that's what we came up with the cluster development for understood um and then there's a there's a line in in this clustering development analysis that says that compared with more traditional site development plans what are traditional site development plans that would be available aside from what is being proposed yeah and I think that's thank you for bringing that up Eric Hy for the record I think that's kind of maybe something that's being um misunderstood here too is uh we're we're not threatening anything and any other type of development but when you look at the um the the findings for a cluster development it it says compared to a more traditional development and under the sf8 zoning designation single family attached is an allowed product and so that would be a more traditional development as in line with a you know a 6,000 foot lot and so when you're talking about setbacks if you had a a single family attached product that was being proposed you can put those single family attached products up to 5T to 19 ft based on the height of the structure along that western boundary and the same with the 6,000 foot Lots if you had a 6,000 foot lot there your setback your rear setback would be 20t minimum and so when you're comparing that to what we are proposing with the with the buffer as well as the um rear setback that is that is the the the comparison there so when you're looking at a more traditional development does this does what we are proposing have a less impact on the surrounding uh neighborhood we believe it does thank you and I have a I want to Pivot topics if that's okay sure um so uh one of the findings that um we traditionally talk about and is required is the is is has to do with traffic and I understand that this type of project doesn't have a traffic study living just down the street and driving down seventh every day there are a lot of I think people that drive at high speeds um I don't NE think that your project would contribute to that um but is there kind of anything that you all can do that otherwise would not happen to allow for there to be either say like a I don't know stop sign or some sort of kind of a like speed radar that would help solve a different problem while we're considering this proposal uh yeah Eric Casey for the record um you know I think I don't know if stop sign would be appropriate I think the applicant is um understanding that you're right you know there there is there is an issue that that is along Seventh Street I don't think this will will add to that and it's not going to go away if this development doesn't go through um I'm not sure if a stop sign is appropriate or what RTC would deem um appropriate but I think the applicant is open to maybe some type of um you know some type of signage to warn people if they were if they were going too fast or something okay and would that be an agreeable condition then if we were to approve this that there' be some sort of speed radar uh posted near the development yeah I think um s I'm just trying to make sure um I think as long as it's within the standards of of what RTC would recommend and the City of Reno then I think that's something that we would be applicable to because if you okay thank you commissioner delvar did you have any questions at this time um I do uh assist commissioner delr and I think this might be a question for for Leah I'm not not sure I'm just kind of curious as to why there actually sort of two pretty significant things that we're deciding on within one piece the the map itself and then also the clustering is that sort of an apologies if this is off scope or anything I'm just trying kind of wrap my head around things absolutely thank you commissioner again Leah picotti for the record uh it's typical that you'll see these kind of projects um lumped together especially when you have a tentative map a lot of times you'll see it along with the mass uh conditional use permit or you might see it with um with a major site plan review usually you'll see it got you grading or things like that yeah that makes sense and then also just sort of curious um um and this sort of piggybacks off of what um commissioner ryer might have been alluding to earlier like how many homes could you put there without the clustering um being in effect it sounds like maybe 14 or so I'm just yeah eyeballing eyeballing the math yeah the the the math doesn't even though it's technically eight dwelling units per acre um it doesn't exactly come out to that number uh but it's but it's somewhere around what the applicant said like 27 um however with cluster development cluster development does allow for a 15% increase in density so they actually could have gone up to like 34 units in this which per our master plan policies and infill development we may have preferred that got it okay thank you that was all I had for now than I'm strong just oh sorry commissioner velto did you have a followup just a quick follow up on that because I think I misunderstood that earlier on so um Leah um I also want to Echo what I believe commissioner R said that your presentation was very good tonight on this it was very well done so thank you for that um but so are you saying without the cluster development the applicants still could still build same number of units yeah well we're looking at a few different things here because we're looking at lot sizes which have to be the six or 7,000 and then we have to look at the density as well so even though this is single family um you there are several different residential type uses that could be allowed such as you know um an attached product or duplexes or things like that so that could impact the density um but if we're just looking at lot sizes I think it's like 14 somewhere in there but if we're looking at the density that's allowed we'd be looking at about 27 units cluster development allows a 15% increase so we could look at 34 units with cluster development thank you while you're up there actually have a question I guess it's more of a straightforward question but can you maybe walk me through how you get to a recommendation of yes on this right so you kind of get to and I get that it's it's difficult but you know you would kind of pointed out there's almost like a 5050 split for the sake of arguing like kind of satisfies the master plan but not really but there aren't any I don't think there were clear issues with Municipal Code or NRS so the issue is kind of like we're torn on master plan uh I don't know call them priorities even though they're not ranked so that that plus I guess this issue of the cluster development like how do you get comfortably I guess to that recommendation like can you explain your thought process to me um yeah I can explain it a bit um and and to be just totally transparent uh I was on the fence I I I really could have written this probably as a denial as well but in the long run when I started looking at it I thought well okay with some conditions of approval I think we can get there I think we can get to a point where where I find this compatible one of the problems with the cluster development is that there's no quantifiable standard in there so there's nothing that says they have to double the amount of open space or they have to provide you know X number of open space per dwelling unit or it has to be adjacent to something that would provide open space trails and there's nothing like that in there so it's hard when you're a planner and you're working on something like this and your applicant who you work with on a regular basis asserts no it is it is cluster development so as you read through the staff report you can clearly see where I'm I'm saying maybe it is and and maybe it's not um in weighing the competing master plan policies like I said in my presentation it's tough um because if I if I recommend denial and I say well it doesn't meet these it does meet all of these so in looking at that I think overall overall it meets Reno municiple code does it meet the intent of code does it meet the intent of of the master plan well that's kind of where you guys come in um I I can look at it from a code standard from a black and white standard and say if I was reviewing this would it would it get approved and the answer is probably yes but it's a discretionary review and when we have these discretionary reviews we we look to you as our as our as our body to decide whether the intent is there for this so when we wrote that code did we intend for this kind of development when we when we created these master plan policies is this was our intent to restrict these kind of developments or was it to protect these kind of neighborhoods and so in terms of getting there um you read my staff report but really it's up to you guys that is uh that is really helpful I appreciate the the eloquent response and kind of transparent thought process uh I have a followup question and I'm sorry if if you've explained this and I'm just not getting it or based on you know some of the other Commissioners on questions but what what is the reason for a cluster development versus kind of the alternative that you explained where if you're getting the same amount of lots effectively I understand there's Nuance but it's kind of apples to apples again for the sake of arguing so what drives I guess like a decision to go for the cluster development and to your point why would the city have maybe preferred like the alternative from a review perspective well I think um that maybe doing a specific plan district for something like this um maybe not would not have been viewed quite as favorably because that's more of a z a whole zone change than just a deviation uh which I look at the cluster development as a as a deviation um I don't know I I've I've done in my years as a planner I've done a handful of cluster development projects uh here and in Arizona and I I've never done one like this um as I as I stated usually when we're talking about protecting view sheds preserving open space protecting these Wildlife corridors trails to open space things like that we're talking about these larger pieces of property and um and in my previous Journey jurisdiction we were all about the views and and again viewshed wasn't protected under that code but people would commonly come in with these larger parcels and they would develop these homes in clusters on the hillside so that they were preserving each other's views not necessarily the views of the neighbors but each other's views and then in and and and because they they we gave them that opportunity to develop that in a cluster they in turn provided all this open open space so I I see the cluster development as sort of a give and take I mean as one of the the people who stood up here said you're providing so you're you're getting this and then you're providing this and I'm not necessarily sure if if it meets the intent it meets the code doesn't meet I don't know if it meets the intent that's super helpful um that's all I have for now again I really appreciate it I'll turn it back to the commission commissioner berera sure thanks so much Leah um I think I know they answer to this question because uh you just answered it I think maybe indirectly with um chair Harris Armstrong um but I did want to ask and it might be maybe a a question in advance for uh my fellow Commissioners as we deliberate but how does this project align with the housing goals and policies outlining the master plan particularly regarding compatibility quality of life and neighborhood preservation and I'll underscore those last three and keep in mind that um I do try to engage with city council conversations and meetings where they do talk about trying to preserve you know neighborhood characteristics and so forth and uh just yeah just like to take your your your take on that yeah thank you commissioner basara I I think that my um slide that I did on the master plan guidance kind of outlines that I mean as you could see in that slide um it is meeting several policies related to um the SF land use designation it's meeting some policies related to those Central neighborhoods um but it's but it's also it's also in in direct conflict with some of the policies that are related directly to neighborhoods General neighborhood policies um Central neighborhood policies and those that um that are adjacent to that Corridor as well great thank you Leah does that answer it it it it absolutely does and I'll just pivot to um Eric if you may or sure thanks Leo hey Eric um might be an awkward question but I think I have to ask it just because uh it you know brought forth to us and uh maybe like to get some clarity around that but uh was there ever any kind of communication with residents uh particularly like promises made or things that weren't above board about this project in order to gain their trust uh Eric Casey for the record um we had a a neighborhood public meeting and everything that we presented to the neighbor the neighborhood is in your staff report and I I even sent a a a a description to toia too and and I I am I'm kind of surprised to hear those allegations honestly because I do not feel that in any way that that was um something that I did or was trying to be misleading um I think we presented the facts from the beginning of this um and you know to from from our standpoint too um it's not like we're trying to be misleading in any of this because our our goal is to is to try to meet the the the requirements of the of the master plan and by providing density in with mcaren ring um for for this area and providing single family detached homes in an area that's primarily single family detached homes and then going above and beyond and doing the what the applicants willing to do with the trees to un to make sure that it does conform because there is a lot of mature trees in this uh in this neighborhood and by him accepting those conditions um to really try to get this this neighborhood into conformance with that you know is something that I think we've been trying to do from the beginning so okay thank thank you Eric I and I asked that because we have to kind of I appreciate you giving weigh out everything and I think as L as Leah mentioned that um there's the Reno Municipal Code NRS and then there's our master plan and that's kind of the area where we try to um uh really be the the collective voice of reason with everybody else involved and um trying to make sense of it all for for all the neighbors here thank you thanks commissioner commissioner Villa please great applicant you could just stay right there um but I am gonna quickly call up staff I have a one question for you thank you Leah uh just to clarify did you say the applicant could bu bu multif family in this space it's single family uh eight but could they they could do an attached product um or they could do uh like duplexes and triplexes those wouldn't be allowed by wri but they could be permitted under discretionary review okay thank you for the applicant so I actually would be in favor of multifam but we have the applicant in you know as presented and I'm actually you know in favor of this project however I'm held up by a couple items here um so if you can take me over and get me to see why I should vote in favor of this um then you know we may be able to get a yes so where I'm being held up is I'm looking at the code section and I don't know if you can pull this up or if anyone can pull this up but I can read it for you as well but section 18493 talks about General standards for residential districts and then it goes section a um then subsection six it says cluster development I don't know if you have that in front of you but it defines cluster development residential zones and then it uh I think we heard this definition a couple times tonight so I'm going to spare you but then it goes when allowed minimum lot size may be reduced through clustering of development if the applicable decision- making body finds that and then it goes into three um do you have this in front of you I'm trying I'm trying I think I might but I'm trying I'm trying to figure out where you're at here okay it's section again I'll read it off to you 18493 subsection a six I can't I'm not what what page do you have a page number yes I do it's it's the development code it's 4106 okay all right I got it cluster cluster development okay so if you can go ahead and review that and if you can convince me why you guys can satisfy that then yeah um so so when allowed right like this this cluster development is allowed within sf8 zoning designation doesn't matter where we're on the we're in the City of Reno sf8 it's it's it's allowed um and so for when you know I think we've I've tried to cover this too again and and you know um commissioner uh vos's comments too about when you're comparing this to a more traditional development right um is clustering going to be less impactful to the surrounding neighborhood and I think with the um buffering as well as the additional setbacks of the rear yards I think we can say that that it that it is um helping preserve viewing corridors I mean I understand that that's people's perceptions of views are are a little bit different I went over that presentation in my slide um and then no inverse impact on adjacent Properties or the applicant has agreed to adopt appropriate mitigation measur meas measures such as Landscaping which we have with this with the conditions screening which are we have with the lot with those three trees in the backyards of lots 1 through 10 and other design features to buffer and protect adjacent properties from the proposed cluster development I believe that we have through all of those with the additional buffer as well as the rear setac and the conditions that were added not only to the Landscaping um but also to the the design features of the homes and considering everything else that's um that we need to account for um with this lot as far as the the Retention Ponds and everything else with I think one of the autums we're going to be talking about later on the agenda the changes to the code I think one some of those changes and maybe not this these changes that we're looking at tonight but I think at some point we're looking at more um affordable housing and multif family things like that if if you guys ultimately got a no today couldn't you just come back in the future when those uh when when the was updated because I do feel like this is in align with the vision for the future of Reno and what we kind of do want to start seeing I just go back I'm like Leah it's hard for me to to fit this into uh the space that we are looking at here um is that I mean what is that an option the the the Builder who is the applicant on this is single family detached homes that's they that's what they do and so um fine um I get that but I mean we don't know what the future holds as far as the changes to the code um I just it I don't know maybe somebody else can convince me because I do like the project I think it would fit really well here but I I I go back and forth um anyone else thank you nothing further from me thank you commission commissioner R did you have a question I'm on I mean I'm ready for discuss okay uh are there any other questions uh from the zoom uh attending Commissioners at this time hearing none did you have additional questions or can we move into discussion you're good all right let's move into discussion commissioner Meer volunteered for that one um gosh I really want to thank the city for deliberating so well on this because it is a very challenging case um I see this uh based on the definition of cluster very much as a stretch don't see how this applies as a cluster development and on the same token I really believe in infill and density and those things are odds here I there are designs that could have been considered which would have achieved those mitigation lot match on the west side that were not considered clearly and higher density perhaps on the east side so for that alone I just don't see how this is a cluster development and yet I could totally support a variance if that was an opportunity because there are hardships with the retention of water that's flowing on the site because of the need for a retention Basin because of the existing ditch because there's no storm drain I feel like the site has a number of hardships um so I would be interested I guess as it was mentioned that that just is not an option of variance in this case you commissioner uh commissioner rera did you have any discussion sure um really just Echo uh commissioner rm's uh sentiments so she's always the eloquent voice amongst this body and so so are the others um I I too agree that it I can't make the finding with uh seeing it as a cluster development it it while it meets the bare minimum of Reno municipal code I don't think that's the bar we want to set uh I don't think it really meets the broader intent as I think some of my fellow Commissioners mentioned and uh staff as well I do I do applaud the applicant uh for working with uh staff uh to try to you know get there um I'm just not there myself yet though thank you thank you commissioner uh commissioner villain W did you have any discussion no discussion it was it's a hard one but I think I have my decision nothing further from me sure thank you uh commissioner velto or commissioner delvar did you have anything for discussion yeah uh commissioner VTO here I um I think um I I've struggled with this cluster development finding that's really the only one that I have been struggling with uh though I did appreciate the explanation uh from the applicant and so far as them explaining why a more traditional site development plan um wouldn't necessarily preserve trees and also may not protect uh stream corridors and other environmental concerns so the way that they explained how the project and the way it was developed May benefit from storm drains and runoff I think is a reason why we can make the cluster development findings at least in so far as it goes to uh sub a of the cluster development finding um beyond that I do think the project um is compatible especially when you're taking into account Alternatives that could be there but just the general findings I can make for the rest of them so while I you know I I understand that there might be maybe a disagreement with the method at which the projects gotten here um I don't think that it's you know our job to say well there was another Avenue you could have gone if it can make the findings and I don't think we should require more than what is otherwise requ ired I'm hearing from the from Leah and from the city's perspective that a lot of these findings can be made as far as the policy portion um I do think that's our job to try to make those policy findings and for a lot of those I feel really comfortable making those findings because this allows for more housing uh increases densification which is something that we you know strive for as a as a city so I feel comfortable um making the findings albeit I am stuck on the cluster to development I will note though I do appreciate that the applicant uh is willing to do things beyond what is required sounded like they would be agreeable to um a form of an amendment that would essentially uh allow for there to be a speed radar uh put at this location which I do think is very beneficial to uh to the area in general and some sort of speed indicator sign that would be posted there would overall be beneficial to to sth Street and really help the community um given what is on the table as an alternative that they could do more densification in the future and that those options are available aside from single family I think that would be probably less characteristic of the of the neighborhood uh and that's why I'd be in support of the project thank you commissioner uh commissioner delvar do you have anything to add um well actually that's nice going last everybody has very articulated uh very much articulated what was on my mind so I think I am good with the discussion for now thank you thank you uh I actually will just make some brief comments and then I think we'll we'll move to a decision but um I have a hard time getting there with with respect to the the cluster development finding specifically but some of the other things I heard just kind of through the line of questioning with respect to it could possibly go one of two ways and that there are issues with respect to intent of the law that make this smirky like I typically like to get comfortable with more of a black and white kind of this fits or it doesn't and this is just too gray for me so I I won't be able to support it um and with that uh bring it back to the commission um entertain a motion uh question for clarification maybe from our illustrious administrator um we tend to put forth the motion before us in the affirmative correct or can we modify what's on the screen in favor of something else you can if if you do make a motion to recommend a denial I would just ask that you for the record State what findings you cannot make correct okay um happy to make a motion uh before I do um Leah could you do me a solid and um pull up that slide please that shows the split 50/50 policy findings and lack thereof I sure can thank you all right and as I make the motion I I guess I'd like folks to just kind of sit with this for a moment and see that uh this comes from the master plan which we put a lot of time money and energy uh as a city and it's supposed to be the voice of the people we do this every 10 or so years or you know some number like that and when we're in a pickle we try to you know fall back to something like this and again be that voice for for the community um especially in these gray areas and we have to live with our neighbors look them in the eye and and say yeah this was an okay decision based on these things or this was not an okay decision and I don't know I I I I guess I would ask folks to to say hey if this if I were in this situation would I be okay with compromising that list on the far right and if so what are we getting in return for this project and um so far I haven't really seen that trade off in in in a really good way so with my motion um I guess could could I just negate the affirmative or can I I I'm essentially going to [Music] deny yes so if you want to put the motion back up Leah oh sure so essentially if if you could make the recommendation based on non- compliance with applicable findings I move to deny the tenative map a major s plan review that's that's the change you would make and then as I mention say what finding or findings you're unable to make right I think the applicable findings that you mentioned so uh based upon compliance oh wait sorry in in the case of LDC 25- 00003 2400 West 7 Street based upon compliance with the applicable findings as presented I move to deny the tenative map and major site plan review subject to the conditions list and St report um failure to meet the findings as presented um are there certain ones that you want to outline I think what he's saying is he wants you to identify at least one specific finding that you cannot make uh sure I mean we have't listed in that um oh [Music] sorry do you want me to pick one or the findings oh the findings I'm sorry um are you just going with master plan yeah uh well because I cannot make the findings in accordance with the current master plan and as presented in the staff report I have a question please if we have different findings that we can't make do we make them the vote based on the motion with findings we could make how does that work I'll have legal chime in but I would assume that as part of the discussion you could you could note any additional findings that you cannot make that's this is Jasmin M that's correct if you agree with the motion to deny um but on a different basis it's helpful if you include that that different basis does someone wish to modify or make an addendum sorry is that something we can just address via a roll call vote so if we get a motion in a second and we do a roll call someone has a a difference of opinion with respect to the motion is that the appropriate time to do it or would it be as part of the second are you talking a difference of opinion with respect to a motion to approve or deny or are you talking a difference of opinion as to the basis for we have a motion to deny at present that was read into the record um someone may make a second um if the person that makes the second doesn't have any issues with how the motion was presented but we moved to a roll call vote and someone else um you know is voting for denial but they want to make clear that they have a different basis or lack of finding for that denial could they do that as part of the Roll Call vote or are you wanting it as only a function of the motion in the second no no no they could do it as part of the Roll Call vote okay perfect thank you hopefully that helps everybody may I clarify my motion I'm just going to write it out because lot so I just like to clarify that I am in denial for lack of adhering to the master plan and the definition of cluster development as presented this evening we have a motion commissioner villan WEA a second we have a motion a second sorry and a second secretary can we get a roll call vote please Carrie r i but on the basis of cluster finding number one Christina DVR I agree with a motion to deny commissioner villain NOA yes um because I cannot um make the finding for cluster development commissioner velto no uh commissioner Armstrong yes and specifically only with respect to the finding related to Cluster development so motion carries sorry uh motion carries and before we close this item I'm going to read the appeal process into the record 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 with that we will close item 5.1 and open item 5.2 lc2400 one1 aerrow Leaf zoning map Amendment look like we'll get a presentation from staff [Laughter] we wait for the room to clear out a boot or go ahead and go I don't have any issues if you want to get started let's go all right good evening members of the commission Jeff Foster associate planner for the record tonight the first case I am bringing you is the zoning map Amendment for the AOL Leaf project LDC 25-11 the project site is about 1.96 acres in size uh it's five vacant Parcels located on the west side of Harvard way about 550 ft north of the intersection with Vasser uh if you don't know quite where that's at you may know where the main US Postal Service office is at so it's uh not too far from there um again it is five vacant Parcels the request is a zone change from multif family uh 30 units per acre to General commercial uh in order to provide for consistent zoning over the property which also includes six additional Parcels that are the subject of a separate conditional use permit application LDC 5- uh 25-12 the key issue that we look at for most zone changes is whether or not the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning as well as land uses um regarding those land uses to the north we have an auto repair business to the east we have a Climbing Gym uh an undeveloped parcel also to the east uh to the West we have undeveloped parcels and a vacant single family residence and we have Apartments to the South the zoning is again multif family 30 uh mf30 which does conform to the master plan however a zone change is being requested to change the zoning into General commercial or GC um and this is related to the uh six Parcels surrounding uh the subject Parcels that are currently zoned GC four of them are shown in the stars there are two other uh essentially sliver Parcels that I couldn't make a star small enough so but they're there uh the master plan um is Suburban mixed use SMU here are three goals and policies that support the requested zone change um here are the allowed uses in The General commercial Zone the ones down here at the bottom in yellow uh require either a minor conditional use permit which is an administrative review or a conditional use permit with approval from the Planning Commission here are the development standards for both uh the current mf30 zoning and the proposed GC zoning um the main differences are the allowable height in the GC Zone as well as the allowable number of stories here are the recommended findings for uh the request and staff can make all recommended findings and here the recommended motion and I'm available for questions thank you uh do we get a presentation from the applicant the applicants um are you going to be making you're not going to be making a presentation on the zone change are you I just a really quick statement kind of what happened fair enough yeah Mike Daniels with uh 1085 group Mr chairman Commissioners um 1957 the the property was subdivided it was uh subdivided where I don't know if you there's Boer Lane and Iona and a couple other streets in there and there were a total of 10 parcels and um half of them five of the parcels were zoned over the course of time to multif family uh 30 mf30 and the other to GC and what we're going to do is we're going to consolidate all those as one big parcel and the project that you'll see next is is what we're proposing on it so that's the purpose and the reason behind the Jon change understood thank you for the brief uh overview uh we'll bring it back to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner villanua please start commissioner villanua familiar with the site commissioner B same disclosure commissioner roer same disclosure commissioner delr same disclosure commissioner velto do you have any disclosures yes commissioner VTO familiar uh with the site um believe that is all commissioner Armstrong no disclosures we'll now move to public comment I have no request to speak forms is there anyone wishing to speak over Zoom we do not have anyone in Zoom no uh do we have anyone in Chambers wishing to speak on this item seeing none we'll go ahead and close public comment for this item and bring it back to the commission for questions commissioner Basera sure thank you chair just really a clarifying question maybe Jeff I'm sure um this is tied to our next item is that correct yes okay perfect um and so if if we approve this then we discuss the next item separately yes is that right y they stand on their own merits yes all right and recommend that uh remember that you're making a recommendation to uh the council to approve it the Planning Commission doesn't actually approve the Zone amend thank you Jee bet all good here do you have any further questions from the commission hearing none I'm happy to move into discussion do we have any discussion or perhaps a motion commissioner vill have a motion to approve commission I second I I think we need to read the full recommended motion right yeah commissioner go waiver could you please read the language on this screen just as formality sure commissioner Villa um motion based uh motion for application LDC 250011 based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance thank you we have a motion and can we get one more second say commissioner delr I second the motion wonderful thank you we have a motion and a second all those in favor I I I motion passes unanimous ly give luck with your project um we will now close item 5.2 and before moving to item 5.3 I'd actually propose a five minute break everyone okay with that all right we'll be back in five minutes thank you e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e know is possible okay oh yeah uh do you think we're ready to bring it back all right uh thanks everybody we're going to bring it back back to the commission to open item 5.3 lc2412 aerol Leaf apartment's conditional use permit and we'll get a presentation from staff evening again Foster associate planner for the record uh bringing you the conditional use permit for the related AOL Leaf Apartments project LDC 25-12 this project is a total of 5.17 Acres uh located again um uh in the same vicinity as the zone change however it's located on both sides of Harvard way again near the USPS post office um it does or sorry it is uh comprised of 11 Parcels 10 of which are vacant one of which uh contains a vacant single family residence and the request is a conditional use permit to allow a 168 unit affordable multif family development the key issues that staff looked at in the staff report are compatibility with surrounding uses and site design uh regarding the surrounding uses you have commercial to the Northwest and East and you have Apartments to the south on both sides of Harvard way the zoning district is a combination of multif family uh 30 mf30 and General commercial and again as we all know it's related to LDC 25 that you just just finished deliberating on the master plan is MF sorry Suburban mixed use and here are five uh policies that support the proposed zone change in terms of some background uh LDC 2511 as you just uh heard is being requested to provide for consistent zoning over the entire property as well as uh allow the proposed density of roughly 32 and a half units per acre the application adheres to The General commercial zoning s standards and is contingent upon adoption of the zoning map Amendment if the city Council does not adopt the zoning map amendment to GC the application will no longer be valid as the project does not meet the current mf30 standards and that is in uh condition number five continuing with the background we have 168 affordable or Workforce Apartments the applica the uh project uh proposes the use of the average income set aside uh that provides for rent and income restrictions between 40% area median income or Ami up to 70% Ami and the applicant can certainly talk more about that the applicant has indicated that the units will be dedicated for affordable housing for a period between 30 and 50 years and that um is uh in condition number six uh the length of affordability will be determined by the Nevada housing division which will record a regulatory agreement against the property that will restrict occupancy in the project to lowincome households the agreement will run with the land for the the term for the term of the affordable restrictions getting into the two issues that staff analyzed the first is compatibility with surrounding uses uh mostly apartments and low intensity commercial uses with standard operating hours surround the site the proposed buildings are located a significant distance from the apartments to the South uh staff is recommending the standard construction hours restriction and that's condition number seven and based on proximity of the proposed outdoor pool to the apartments to the South condition 8 limits the uh allowed hours given all of the above the proposed use is generally compatible with the existing land uses in the area in terms of the site design there are four apartment buildings a clubhouse and a maintenance building with a bike repair area two of the apartment buildings are three stories shown here um each of those buildings contains 24 units and is about 29 ft tall there are also two five-story buildings shown here and those buildings each contain 60 units and are about 49 ft tall there's also about a 4400 square foot Clubhouse shown here that includes a leasing Center offices CL a club room a fitness center and a pet spa uh there are exterior resident amenities um including a pool a Tot Lot and three patio barbecue areas and the project is required to have 168 parking spaces they are providing 200 131 of which 168 are in a carport uh covered format uh an example of which is shown here there is also street parking available and there are 50 proposed uh bike parking spaces all multif family use specific standards including air conditioners and washers and dryers in each unit are included in the project design and will be demonstrated at the building permit phase uh and Street facing facades appear to meet the required wall articulation and ground floor transparency continuing with site design the GC Zone requires a minimum of 15% Landscaping the project includes approximately 27% Landscaping including 6ot landscaped parking lot edges which are important for the parking spaces facing the apartments to the south on the west side of Harvard way however due to how close those proposed parking spaces are to the existing apartments and the potential for headlights to shine into the windows of those departments staff recommends condition number nine uh which would require installation of a screening fence or wall in the area shown there here are the recommended use permit findings and staff uh can make all recommended findings and here's the recommended motion and I'm available for questions oh no that's not true I am available for questions but this is not the full recommended motion I did we uh we did send you an a a memo last week with a an additional recommended condition number 10 um that condition is to require a u formal pedestrian Crossing or crosswalk between uh both sides of the project to facilitate pedestrian safety so uh this would be amended to this motion would be amended to also include condition number 10 thank you Jeff are we getting a presentation from the applicant on this piece of it looks like we are whatever you're ready well I have a long presentation but I don't think I need to go into it Mike Daniels with 1085 group Mr chairman Commissioners um it's been a pleasure to work with Jeff he's been amazing we we just went through this project in no time it's been great so and he did a great job explaining it so maybe to cut things short I'll just go through and and be available to answer any questions I do have one question on condition six um and it has to do with how long the project is to be affordable that all depends on the funding that we get um there's tax credits um bond funds uh everything else and so what we'd like to do is just change it to where the length of the how long it is Affordable will be depending on the type of funding that we get if I don't get any funding which you know we're not hoping that doesn't happen but then then you know it wouldn't be an affordable project we'd have to try to build it as a marker rate project um but right now we everything's looking good on the tax credit side the bond financing we're working with the city Areno on uh a number of different there's there's just a bunch of funding that takes it somewhere between 20 and 30 years or 30 and 50 years so that's the only condition change that we'd want to make on that the other thing I want to let you know that although this is an affordable project it's being built you know we've built 30 40 thousands I'm with Pacific West Builders also um units over the years and this is built just like our market rate projects they're roughly the same size average wise within 50 square fet they've got all the amenities they're they've got all the exterior suckle all the interior amenities it's really a nice really really nice project so we we hope it get approved and and get a move forward on it so if you have any questions we're here so I've also Bob lawers with me he's the expert in the in the affordable game in our side so he'd be happy to answer any questions also thank you great thanks so much we'll bring it back to the commission for disclosures commissioner villan NOA commissioner Villa familiar with the site commissioner Basera familiar with the site commissioner M Meer same disclosure commissioner delv familiar with the site commission VTO same disclosure commissioner Armstrong same disclosure uh we'll now move to public comment I don't have any request to speak form is there anyone wish anyone on Zoom wishing to speak on this item does not look like we have anyone with their hands raised on Zoom but we did receive correspondence for this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the record great thank you do we have anyone in the Chambers wishing to speak under public comment for this item seeing none we'll go ahead and close public comment for this item and bring it back to the commission for questions have any questions from our commissioners in Zoom yeah I have this is a commissioner Del VR um I have a question I'm not sure who who should um answer but it has to do with that condition six um you know the affordability and I'd kind of like to understand it from um you know city of Reno's standpoint about why that condition is in there and then maybe a little bit from um uh from the applicant to understand why they don't want it there again I trying to put it all together uh Jeff Foster associate planner for the record so the condition was uh put in the staff report based on the fact that the application was positioned as an affordable housing project and um during the uh staff review um I asked what was how long was this going to be an affordable housing project um and the response came back as a minimum between 30 and 50 years and so so uh staff felt that it was appropriate since this was being positioned as an affordable housing project and and marketed as such if you will right um that we condition it also as as appropriate I will point out that the applicant did not request any of the allowances that would be uh afforded to them under the code um in terms of in increased density or something like that for being an affordable project so there there's there's not a strict tie to being an affordable project in other words they didn't get X number of additional units or anything like that for being affordable so um it it just kind of comes back to it was positioned as an affordable project it was it was indicated that it would be affordable for a period between 30 and 50 years and therefore we wanted to make sure that that was kind of what you accepted it as having said that I've uh spoken with the applicant and um I staff would be comfortable amending the condition to have some kind of a caveat or language at the end tying it to the amount of time that they end up getting the funding for so if that's 12 or 15 years or something along those lines whatever period of time that they actually get the the funding for we would be fine with amending the condition to to tie back to that okay and that would be um so for example like you're saying if it's for 12 years then it would be amended to 12 years and then sort of what happens from the standpoint of you know does that condition just go away and they can then continue to rent you know at higher rates or is that basically the concept yes yeah yeah that the the it's not into perpetuity that they can turn to market rate after um the period of time that they are uh allotted by the Nevada housing division and then this is probably a question for them but if they don't if they don't get any and like he said of course he wants it um approved but if they don't get any um any funds approved then what what's the implication for uh us approving this based on that does it does that sort of go away um and they reposition it and bring it back to us um I I believe and Mike you might be able to speak to this but I believe that we have ways to amend the condition um I don't know that it would need to come back to the Planning Commission I think we might be able to amend the condition administratively if they're not able to obtain the funding correct Mike really for the record planning manager the other considerations is this project does Meet The General commercial standards for a standard multif family project right so yeah okay thank you that was all I have for now thank you uh commissioner VTO while we're on Zoom did you have any questions yeah just to follow up on on that question is is there any reason why aside from let me rephrase that sorry uh if condition number six were not in a condition for approval would the city be able to make all of the other findings yes yeah the the the the rest of the project would stand nothing else would change we would be able to make the findings uh without that condition okay I um I really like requiring this to be affordable I am super in supportive of that uh I am very concerned that is not something we can do and I don't know if that's I can't really tell you why at this point but it just seems like questionably legal and possibly overstepping our bounds um with that said I would support it because I like the idea of there being more affordable housing but I kind of share the sentiment of uh the prior commissioner just that concerns me for the record U Mike reallyy planning manager I I think it's important to state that that condition could go away entirely since they are not requesting any of the benefits so to speak of an affordable housing the incentives um this could stand on its own Merit so you could move forward with the removal of that condition entirely I guess I sorry real quickly I guess I don't want to remove it is is legal okay with that condition being in place this is Jasmine MAA um I think since uh since Mr Foster clarified that they were not requesting any um of the of the characteristics that might be granted for an affordable housing project um that this could be approved as it is without an affordable housing condition and because um I know that they are in for um for state and federal funding that would require at least certain units to be affordable um I I think it would be better to remove that condition altogether thank you any further questions not hearing any from the zoom crowd do we have any questions from the commission uh at this point or do we want to move to discussion question uh commissioner bah please sure I guess for the applicant uh it might be tag team between you and Mr Jeff um further record Mike Daniels hey Mike how you holding up good okay so for clarification were you asking for the entire removal or just the change in language so it wasn't as long but just maybe a shorter period I think that we would we' be fine with the the timing corresponding to the funding and and believe me our goal is for this project to be affordable we've already like your attorney just indicated we're deep into applications and Bob can go deeper into how much funding we do have but if as long as it's tied to the amount of funding that we do get and if we don't get any funding then it wouldn't go as an affordable project I mean that's I mean either that and it maybe it just doesn't get built right you you you mentioned that there like many of these projects uh in your kind of um or this is not your first rodeo with with this type of project correct we haven't done an affordable since 95 we've we built thousands and I think close to 20,000 units uh over the course of since about 90 and uh but we haven't done affordable for a long time and we we're just getting back into it okay great I where I'm going with this is I was really excited because um I actually thought this was just General commercial not affordable in having to brief with staff as well it's like man this is the bar this is what affordable housing should be right it's it's it's a it's a great project the problem is is that you can't solidify all your your your funding your affordable funding until you basically have a permit right before you have a permit so the plans have to it has to be permit ready can can have to to jump on what commissioner belto was suggesting of keeping it would you be amenable to keeping a modified version of that statement so it affords you flexibility if you didn't get the funding but it keeps it there to to ensure that it's affordable for x amount of years based on funding based on funding yeah that would be fine okay great that's what I would be leaning towards too and and then it really helps honestly on a on a wider scale it raises the bar for for others and yall would be like the the poster developer if you will for that type of deel M commissioner baser if I can just make one one comment for your consideration um when they if they get the funding that comes through there there'll be stipulations in order for them to get the tax credits that they'll have to record um documentation that they are affordable so it might be somewhat of an issue that takes care of itself so to speak when that funding comes true so I just I just want to make clarify that commissioner Vala I was just going to say something similar I mean if it's going to it's going to be affordable if they get the funding and yeah there's not going to be any issues there and if they don't get the funding then they you know they either build or they don't build but they're not it's not tied to any incentives so I I just don't see any value in keeping it yeah agreed um do we have any discussion or are there questions uh still out there happy to make a motion okay or a motion commissioner [Music] VTO uh in the matter of sorry let me think sure I'm against the right one okay there we go uh in the matter of case number LDC 250012 uh based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff staff report except that condition number six uh shall be removed go ahead Jeff I think there was one more addition you had right uh and uh what about condition number 10 the additional condition that we emailed my apologies with the additional condition number 10 thank you thank you uh we have a motion do we have have a second second we have a motion and a second all those in favor I I I motion passes unanimously good luck with your project we'll now close item 5.3 and move to item 5.4 lc24 d010 security Circle yard zoning map Amendment and it looks like we have a presentation from staff whenever you're ready thank you uh Daniel martoma associate planner specialist for the record uh before you is a a request for another request for recommendation to the city council for a zoning map Amendment and so the subject site is approximately 2.2 Acres that occupies two Parcels located at the northeast corner of Virginia Street and security Circle um the current zoning designation of the subject site is mixed use Suburban which does not conform with the site's master plan land use designation and so the proposed uh zoning uh change to mixed employment would bring the two Parcels into conformance with the master plan and so key issues with this requests that were analyzed were compatibility of the proposed zoning uh to the surrounding zoning districts as well as conformance with the master plan and uh this slide illustrates the current zoning of the subject site and surrounding properties and um please note uh the shared mixed use Suburban uh zoning of jent properties on the east side of Virginia Street as well as the residential uh zoning uh or the residentially zon properties on the west side of Virginia Street and so through the adoption of the reimagine Reno master plan the the subject site as well as the adjacent properties on the east side of Virginia Street were assigned the mixed employment m master plan land use designation so just want to make that distinction mixed employment master plan land use designation as well as the proposed zoning of mixed employment uh and so uh as a result there have been uh some uh land use inconsistencies on a local scale uh between the city zoning map and the city's master plan and so uh this proposed zoning to mixed employment will uh is in substantial conformance with the master plan and these highlighted master plan uh goals and policies and so here's a comparison table of the use types allowed in both the mixed employment zoning District highlighted in green here as well as the mixed use Suburban zoning District highlighted in gold and so with the with the exception of residential use types uh the the use types allowed between both zoning districts uh are actually quite similar with some minor distinctions and so uh and then here is a table listing the development standards of both uh zoning districts and uh it's important to note that uh per Title 18 of the Reno Municipal Code uh a site plan review would be required for non-residential developments adjacent to or within 150 fet of residentially zoned property and as mentioned this subject site uh would qualify due to exis existing residentially Zone properties to the West um I can point that out again so here to the West um and so uh uh with with that uh any site plan review would uh review uh residential adjacency standards to mitigate any potential issues related to noise lighting sight signage setbacks building orientation Etc and uh at present the applicant has applied for and requested a site plan review for the subject site and and uh it's important to note that the approval uh of that site plan review is contingent upon City council's approval of this zoning map Amendment request and these are the recommended findings for approval of a zoning map Amendment and City staff has made all all the findings and of course this is the recommended motion and I'm available for any questions you may have thanks so much for your presentation bring it back to the commission oh sorry before I do that do we have a presentation from the applicant or is it just staff tonight uh well the applicant is here I guess to answer any questions but I don't believe there's any formal presentation understood uh in that case we will bring it back to the commission for disclosures uh commissioner villain NOA no disclosures commissioner bisera no disclosure commissioner barer no disclosure closures commissioner delr I am uh familiar with the site that's it commissioner VTO no disclosures commissioner Armstrong no disclosures uh we'll now move to public comment I have no request to speak uh I have no request to speak forums is anyone on Zoom wishing to speak on this item uh no one on zoom and we have not received any correspondence for this item understood anyone in the Chambers wishing to speak on this item seeing none we will go ahead and close public comment bring it back to the commission for questions do we have any questions commissioner Basera sure just hey Daniel really just a clarifying question here um great job um this is really just also to bring bring up this um area up to conformance is that correct that's correct so so if we denied it we'd be going against Conformity right essentially yes great all right thanks do we have any further questions from the commission hearing none we can go into discussion or a motion do we have any [Music] discussion anyone willing or ready to make a motion in the case of LDC 25-10 based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance this commissioner delvar second great we have a motion and a second all those in favor I I I motion passes unanimously good luck with your project we'll now close item 5.4 and open item 5.5 txt 23-00 005 Title 18 zoning code clean up and it looks like we'll get a presentation from Angela just before I begin did you guys want to take a quick break this will be a long agenda item uh anyone need a we just took a five minute break so I think we're good we'll rally yeah thank you though maybe after this one Angela because we have another one with you after this correct you do okay are you guys here for the side yes okay so it sounds like we do have some public comment did you want public comment to go first or do you want me to go ahead and kick it off um yeah actually I normally we do the other thing but yeah let's just open public comment for this item we have anyone in the Chambers wishing to speak on this item looks like we got at least one um can you just fill out a request to speak form oh you were prepared go ahead sir thank you whenever you're ready uh John mcginness yes uh chair Armstrong and members of the commission uh my name is John mcginness and I'm the Vice President of Sales for the Reno Sparks convention visitors Authority or the rscva uh on behalf of our president and CEO Mike larett who is not able to be here tonight I want to thank you all for the opportunity to speak briefly on this topic uh which we believe is vital to the economic health of the City of Reno in Northern Nevada at the rcva our job is to entice visitors to come to Reno Sparks North North Lake Tahoe area to enjoy the outdoors the special events the great entertainment offering that we all know and love ultimately it is our job to to support the local economy economy by getting those visitors to stay overnight at transient lodging establishments in Wu County the rcva is the sales and marketing organization driving visitation to the destination and in those efforts we are branded as Reno Tahoe tourism is a 5.2 billion doll industry in waser County according to our research partner tourism economics tourism generated more than $440 million in state and local taxes in 2023 and supported more than 43,000 jobs while the diversification of our economy has been key to recent growth We Believe tourism is still the driving force of the regional economy this is the area that thrives on events as locals we look forward to experiencing this The Nostalgia of 5,000 classic vehicles taking over our city and rolling through downt Town we're excited for theatrical performances and concerts at Wingfield Park and we know when it's time to enjoy a chicken wing or Italian food festival right here in downtown our research shows that visitors also enjoy these amenities more than ever Travelers especially the new generation of Travelers want to immerse themselves in local culture in celebrations that are authentic to the destination at the rcva we are planning around that we have $1 million budgeted to support events New and existing special events and also to go out and find events that may want to relocate to Northern Nevada we do this because we know the events support visitation and visitation supports businesses big and small throughout waso County and right here in downtown Reno these are taxpaying businesses the are these are established businesses these are businesses that rely on visitation and these are businesses that rely on visitors having a reason to come to downtown to play in downtown and to stay overnight in downtown some of the larger casino resorts in this area are also heavily invested in improving downtown in 2015 they supported a self-imposed nightly room sirch charge to help fund improvements of public city-owned buildings around downtown part of the reason was to continue bringing the Region's largest convention to town since 1995 the United States Bowling Congress or USBC has brought more than 1 million Bowlers to the National bowling Stadium accounting for over $1 billion in economic impact for Reno and the surrounding areas and that's just USBC we know this is a lot of information and I want to end by saying that on behalf of the rcva we appreciate the difficult work you do as a Planning Commission and I want to ask the commission to please consider the impact of events in the downtown area how it affects visitation how it creates room nights for larger businesses and how it creates new customers for small businesses in the area and how all of these tax paying businesses and their employees benefit gam entation in downtown Reno thank you for your consideration thank you so much do we have anyone else in the Chambers wishing to do public comment on this item seeing none and before I close out do we have anyone on Zoom that wanted to speak for this item we do have Tyler Colton on Zoom Tyler when you're ready uh please looks like you're unmuted please state your name for the record you'll have three minutes hi Tyler Colton can you guys hear me yes okay um so I've spoke to a couple of you about this and I'm going to kind of layer on what Patrick Coleman spoke about so with entitle 18 uh there was the live entertainment update that happened in January of 2021 uh it was kind of a blanket that put an 11:00 curfew on live entertainment and that after that You' need a conditional use permit I think that the intent was like a little bit overreaching and I don't think the intent was to be that uh so there are some areas that it seems don't need a conditional use permit there are some businesses that are already existing that have been forced to get a conditional use permit so the language within Title 18 currently is a little all over the place and feels like for the live entertainment portion needs updated I think what we'd like to see is some type of zones created entertainment zones so that would kind of really Define which businesses would need a a cabaret license with the additional conditional use permit and which businesses and areas would not need to apply for that so an example um there I'm in Midtown and I was told that my Cabaret license allows me to operate without a conditional use permit with the hours that I applied for so I'd be grandfathered into those hours but a new establishment on Virginia Street's opening and they were told they will not need a conditional use permit and that they're 24 hours there's another bar that's existing on Four Street in the brewery District that has been there for 10 plus years they last year were forced by code to get a conditional use permit yet they had already been 24 hours so there's a lot of discrepancies between what areas who between planning business and code of who needs to get this so we're kind of asking that you take this up with entitled 18 that you create these entertainment zones or or update the code so that it's much more clear and that each area is or entertainment zones people really understand what they will need as an existing business or a person opening a new business um and I I want to thank you all as well I'm watching you guys over all these months now what a difficult job so much comes over your desk uh so I apply you in really paying attention uh and trying to do the best for the city and I know it's important uh so thank you and hopefully you will take this to [Music] council thank you for your comments do we have anyone else on Zoom wishing to speak uh we do not have anyone else on Zoom no okay we will go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to staff for the presentation okay thank you for the record Angela fuss assistant director with development services I think we're bringing up there we go so this is a long time coming this is finally the text Amendment it's an actual ordinance now this is the final document the final Red Line um we've been working on this for several years we started this process right after we adopted our zoning code back in 2021 the previous zoning code was a major overhaul it went through probably two years worth of time and meetings and a consultant to help us rewrite the zoning code and so the product of that is what we have adopted today now over the last couple years we've been keeping track of what things don't make sense areas that conflict with one another um things that from an Outsiders perspective people have said I don't even know what this means and our staff says yeah I don't I don't know what that means either so we have a list and we've been cleaning it up we also have a number of things that are just basic for instance we used to call our department Community Development so there's probably 50 words 50 times in the zoning code where it references Community Development we're no longer called that now we're called development services that's a very basic cleanup but you see it a lot throughout the code another basic one is site plan review we have two kinds of site plan reviews we have a regular site plan review and we have a major site plan review a lot of people are confused on well how do I what's a major versus a regular so we said let's clean that up let's just add the word minor so we have a minor site plan plan review and a major site plan revieww again just a cleanup it doesn't change how it's reviewed or what the findings are but throughout the code it's probably written in there a hundred times the word site plan review now says minor site plan review just simple things that help make it easier if you're trying to review this code and understand it there was a lot of areas that again were very inconsistent so fencing for example we had a whole section on fencing and then in other sections of our code they had unique section on fencing so you may have a whole chapter about fencing and then you go to our industrial requirements and there's additional requirements for fencing and then you go to our Parks requirements and oh there's additional requirements for parks and so that became very confusing because people would inherently think oh if I want to know about fencing I would go to the chapter titled fencing you wouldn't think oh let me find some weird section of code that also talks about fencing so we called that inconsistencies cleanups just making it easier for the average person as well as our staff to try and make sense of this very big document and then of course anytime we have changes with the legislative session they have rules and regulations and laws that come out that then we need to change as part of our code so we have been working on this for quite some time we've held many many meetings had many discussions with the general public we started the process by first going out to the nabs that was a year and a half ago and we just gave him a high level here are some things for you guys to be involved in we put all of the nabs on Anil email stakeholder list so anytime we sent out an email the NAB members were involved so they could continue to watch what was happening and share that with their community and then we held a technical advisory committee this was about I think 30 to 35 people um planners Engineers Landscape Architects Architects Public Works uh people at staff people outside of staff so it was a good group of people that we had to review the changes we did that over the course of seven seven different meetings and then we went out to some these smaller groups like The Historic Resource Commission we have a whole chapter dedicated to Historic resources and so we went to them made sure that they were in support of the changes we went back twice to make sure they were comfortable a lot of small smaller meetings we met with the landscape Community we met with the school district um we met with anyone really that had questions any smaller groups that had questions and then we hold held bigger I would say more public stakeholder meetings this was for anyone anyone that wanted to be involved I don't care if you lived in Reno owned property in Reno lived in Carson City but were just interested in Reno really anyone that was interested was in invited to attend these meetings and some of them were virtual and some of them were in person very few people showed up to the in person um I will say that the virtual ones were better attended but not greatly attended and I think part of it is this is a very technical document the average person has never read a zoning code probably never will so I think they were just looking for high level information we did go to apply in commission three times we broke it up into three meetings to help it make it more digestible as we work through a lot of the details we went to council got their input based on some of the feedback from the Planning Commission and then we went back to the nabs this last October really just to kind of come full circle and just make sure that we tried to get that um final input with the neighborhood so again big things that we want to highlight um what's not part of this current zoning code cleanup that we're doing separately adus now I know this group has talked a lot about adus we are moving forward Council has initiated that we'll be doing our stakeholder Outreach starting in January so that will be coming before Planning Commission um shortterm rentals we're not sure when that's going to come forward we're waiting for Council to initiate that but there's nothing in this Sony code tied to short-term rentals changes to the noise ordinance we had quite a few residents in the downtown area approach us about creating a noise ordinance at this point we've been working with our city management team and we are going to go a separate direction from the codee cleanup so there'll be an item on our next Council agenda talking about noise and then we had included some smaller things related to tree protection um after after meeting with um Council wur and our management team it was decided to pull all of those items out so that at a separate time we could do a separate text Amendment really specific to tree protection and do a deeper dive and make some I'd say bigger um broader changes so we pulled anything out that we had initially proposed signs same thing um initially with this code cleanup we had a couple small changes um but we took all of that out so no more any changes to signs as part of this process we have a separate process that we've lumped all of the sign changes with um that went to Planning Commission just for feedback already we are going to city council just for feedback next month and then of course that will come back before you as a formal ordinance for your review we also have a separate text Amendment tied to telecommunication which is cell towers that will also be coming before you guys at a future time so high level I want to talk about some bigger themed type changes um you know there was a lot of changes and we can go through any of the red lines but from a general perspective I wanted to just kind of give you big picture some of the changes that are coming out of this code cleanup so number one is related to regulating number of stories all of our different zoning districts regulate how tall a building can be and also how many stories a building can be so for instance if you're in let's say a um a General commercial zoning District let's say you can go up to 65 ft and maybe they cap it at five stories so we said well that's kind of conflicting where you have two different sets of rules so we said let's the at the end of the day I don't know that we care so much how many stories you have but we do care about how tall that building is so we removed all requirements related to number of stories and kept the building height and this does follow more line with kind of best practices if you look at any other zoning code um we couldn't find other zoning codes that actually look at number of stories they all look at Building height so this is really getting us more aligned with best practices we have another kind of really old archaic section in our zoning code tied to setbacks and in some of our um multifam and in all of our mixed use we have two different setbacks for side setbacks so one of them is zero feet and again if you're trying to Pro promote infill you want to encourage more of the um ability to build more up um rather than out and so um that zero foot infill or zero foot setback allows you to build on the property line but then we had a second set of standards that said or greater than 5 feet or greater than 10 feet and so we have Development coming forward saying well I want to build at the 3 feet property line so I meet the requirement because the setbacks five or zero feet we're like well actually there's two standards and some of our staff say no no no they can build zero or up to five other staff said no no it says zero or greater than five so again from a conflict perspective even our own staff um had had different opinions on how that works we went back and we looked at other codes does anyone else do this no nobody else does this so I think that was just one of those old archaic things that's been in code for decades and probably had something more to do with building code requirements um building code has certain regulations if you're building on the Zero setback line but again building code and fire code regulate that that we don't need the zoning code to regulate that it's already being regulated somewhere else so we took that out anywhere that we allow a zero foot setback we maintained that anywhere that we had like three or four different versions We said take that out just have one set of setbacks other things related to infill we had some sections of our code that required development with an alley have access off that alley and in theory it's good from a from an infill perspective you want the ability to have access off an alley if that's where your primary access is or maybe the street on the other side but what we found is it was actually kind of impeding development where developers would come to us and say I really don't want to design my site so I have to have access from the alley I want to do this cool little infill project and it doesn't work um the other issue is that the city does not maintain alleys we don't have funding to maintain alleys and so this has become more apparent as you drive down alleys and see that they're full of potholes and the city's not maintaining them so for encouraging people to use alleys but we're not maintaining them we kind of have a conflict and we said whoa whoa whoa we probably shouldn't regulate this as a mandatory in our zoning code we definitely encourage infill to use alleys but we're not mandating that you have your primary access off an alley related to parking um we looked at allowing more compact parking that's basically parking that's more narrow um and and shorter not everybody drives a big truck in Nevada lot A lot of people do but we do have a lot of people that have more small smaller compact cars and so we want to be again a little bit more up to speed on um what the norm is and so we are now allowing more compact parking within a lot of our big commercial shopping centers and then on street parking anytime you have parking requirements we have requirements of how many spaces are required on your site and then we also say how many can be required on the street so as long as that parking is literally in front of your parcel we call that street parking you can't use your neighbors front of their um parcel but we added more allowances for that on street parking CH no go ahead let's go ahead it might be while it's fresh in your mind okay great um the slide before with the Alleyways can you touch on that a little bit what do you mean the requirement for Alley access um I'm not familiar so like take Wells Avenue kind of area in general there's a lot of existing alleys and we have requirements that if you're coming in with a new development let's say you're going to build a duplex and let's say you have the the you know the front of your of your house is a street let's pick a street anywhere on in the Wells Avenue area and the back of your property is an alley so we have some requirements that if that is a case and you're doing new development we want you to have garage access on the Alley not on the primary street so your average Street anytime you look at a normal single family neighborhood right you see a garage you see a front door from the street and so we had requirements that said if you have alleys your garage access has to be from the alley and again we we felt that at one time it was more of like oh it makes it look like a better neighborhood because you're not looking at a garage door from your main street so in theory that was kind of a a nice thing um but in practicality a lot of these infill developers are saying well you're forcing me to put my garage in back and that doesn't work for my type of development maybe I'm doing four units or five units and I need garage access from the front for some units and garage access from the alley for other units so we got more complaints than we did um positive feedback on this requirement so we said we we support all use of alleys or front streets we don't want to hinder infill just giving more flexibility does that make sense okay now with supporting infill kind of opposite of that is how did then we protect existing neighborhoods while the idea of infill is great our master plan supports it um we do get a lot of complaints from Neighbors that that live in areas where infill is happening and they feel that their um neighborhood is changing because of all this infill development so we also wanted to be cognizant of that and try and do something to protect existing neighborhoods so one of them is we looked at some of the commercial uses things like car washes things like Jiffy lubs um you know you have those often times mixed in with neighborhoods and we wanted to make sure that neighbors were being protected a lot of these car washes are um 24-hour use you can go get your car washed at night when when you know your neighbors are sleeping but you're there washing your car and vacuuming your car so we put in some standards that say whoa whoa whoa again for these car washes great we support them but we have to have some protections to help mitigate the noise and the the um the bright lights and the just you know the everything that is kind of that negative impact so we added some extra standards related to car washes anything with a loading dock you know let's say you're Target and you have a loading dock in the back and maybe um next to your target facility is multif family so again now you have multif family next to a shopping center that shopping center has loading docks there's trucks coming in probably 24 hours a day dropping off and picking up and so those are the kinds of things that we're trying to protect when we look at existing residential neighborhoods and some of these commercial or um non-residential uses and then we have some conflicting requirements in code we have a lot of requirements what that we call more of residential adjacency buffers that's things like lighting additional screening additional Landscaping additional fencing and so some sections of our code say these additional standards apply if you're within 150 ft of residential zoning and other sections of our code say 300 feet and so again depending on what section of the code you're looking at you get conflicting regulations so we took the more conservative approach and we said anyone within 300 feet not 150 feet new development coming in next to residentially zed property would have these additional buffers so again trying to protect those existing neighborhoods the other thing that came um feedback from from city council is related to mobile home parks a lot of our mobile home parks are not zoned residential they're um often in commercial zoning districts so they would not trigger these residential adjacency protections because it's based on what your zoning is so Council asked us to add some language that protects existing mobile homes anytime new development comes in and then one of the big ones too is related to our um setbacks and step back so anytime you have existing residential development and again it has to be zoned residential and you have a new development coming in let's say you have a a one-story house and next door is a vacant lot and somebody wants to come in with a three-story apartment we have a requirement with that new building that new three-story building if it's over 24 ft any part of it that's over 24 ft in height has to step back a foot for every foot of development over one foot um this is something that had already been in our code but again we had so many different conflicting regulations on this stepb back regulation we said let's just make it clean um let's make sure that everyone understands what it is and I'll have some great examples of what I'm talking about um but this is something that again protects those existing residents we don't get a ton of I would say highlevel multif family development next to single family homes um we typically get you know two stories three stories maybe four stories moving into one and two story development so um from a big picture perspective I I think this will help the smaller infill projects um the big Garden style Apartments we typically probably don't see them in residential development so I think on these smaller projects it will be helpful other things we're doing to protect neighborhoods we looked at our screening requirements that's that table on the right our current screening requirements are based on your zoning not based on your use so you kind of look at what's my existing zoning what's my use coming in and let's say you had a mixed use zoning you could be Apartments you could be single family you could be industrial you could be commercial um so we said well wait a minute we probably should base our screening how we're protecting two different uses based on a use not based on a zoning so we clean that up to better protect uses rather than zoning we also looked at lighting we get a lot of complaints about lighting from these big industrial projects and Commercial projects so anything within a 100 ft of residential um you're limited in height of of 18 ft for your lights and so that is a um a light both in a parking lot and a light on a wall and you think well 18 ft where did that come from if you think about a two-story house two-story house is generally probably 24 ft so a lot of times people have a light on the second story of their house so again it's not um something that's majorly crazy and out there to say you're going to be capped at 18 ft uh we also looked at how tall a lot of these semi- trucks are generally they're about 13 ft so this allows flexibility for these semi- trucks to get through a parking lot with 18 ft tall pool lights and then we also looked at within our industrial zones uh because we're having so many conflicts with warehouses conflicting when they're next door to residential uh we now added a requirement that if you are in the industrial Zone and you want to do a warehouse if you're within 300 ft of residential zoning and you want to operate 24 hours a day you're no longer allowed to do it by right today you can do it by right you can go straight to a building permit now what we're proposing is that you would have to go through a conditional use permit so that again the the neighbors could weigh in and have input we can look it on a case-by casee basis and make sure the right protections are in place to help buffer those existing residents from that warehouse use would that include mobile homes yes okay and then more specifically on Industrial Development U we have some sections of the co that were're just kind of goofy we have a rule that says if you're zoned industrial commercial and the square footage of your building is more than 500,000 Square fet we require that you have multiple tenants now that means that let's say you have a big amazon that comes in and they're more than 500,000 Square F feet a lot of those big buildings are closer to a million square fet um this section of our code requires that they had multiple tenants and I I from a a zoning perspective I'm not sure why we care if it's multiple tenants or one tenant that seemed to be a bit of an overreach and at the end of the day we want to make sure that the the site itself is designed to again mitigate the impacts right lights traffic parking from the employees so we said well let's let's take out that requirement that we no longer care if you're one tenant or multiple tenants but anything over that 500 ,000 sare foot um still will go through a public review process from a um a use perspective the the building itself is not a use so a conditional use permit really wasn't the appropriate entitlement it would be more of a site plan review but we wanted to keep it at Planning Commission so now it just triggers a major site plan review so everything still comes before Planning Commission um again the thing is now that we're looking at it for um anything over 500,000 Square F feet and we don't care if it's one tenant or multiple tenants other things with Industrial Development we looked at where we currently allow that indoor manufacturing processing assembly for the most part that's typically like a big Warehouse um and so we looked at where where where it's at allowed Now by right and we modified it within our mixed use mixed use Suburban so our mixed use zoning um it was permitted by W now we have a go through an entitlement so again we can just look at it from a case-by casee perspective similar to that warehouse distribution we looked at where we allow it by right and said uh any chance where there there could be residential nearby but the zoning is so open to so many different uses we don't really catch it um so now we're going to require more of a um an entitlement through that process and then data centers that is a a use that we currently do not have in our zoning code we are starting to see data centers we have one coming before Planning Commission in the very near future that will be our first one so that's exciting um but we we needed to establish it as a use so we look at what are the parking requirements we are requiring a conditional use permit for all data centers just because again they're they're they're new and they're new you unique they do have impacts and so we want to make sure that we can address them depending on where they're at what do they qualify as now if I if they were to come forward today for the most part we took them look at as more of an indoor manufacturing or a warehouse type use because we haven't had any come in yet it's all been just talk um the ones that we have had conversations with with we've said tell us a little bit more about what you're doing you know do you have employees coming to work for you do you have big trucks coming um so this now we've defined what we would consider a data center we're also limiting if you're building a brand new data center we're limiting how many doctors you can have so that you may tell us you're a data center but you put on a bunch of truck doctors you're not really a data center if that's what you're doing um so we we have some limitations now on making sure that they truly fit that definition of data center and that would be in an endeavor industrial Zone I I assume so yep anywhere where we allow um our industrial zones also in our General commercial um I think we also allow them in our mixed use and again all with a conditional use permit you well they don't exist yet so we don't have any yet we don't have any data centers yet but we don't but the use doesn't exist yet either correct so what we have done in the past we um have written what we call an administrative interpretation um anytime there's a use that doesn't exist we have to create a use and so when people call us and say Hey I want to build a data center we have to give them a set of Standards so we wrote an administrative interpretation now we're putting it into code oh so there there's one that exists already an interpret we we have none built in Reno we have none that have applied to be built in Reno except for one that is now applied for a conditional use permit but it hasn't come before us yet yeah I understand that but does the interpretation exist yet has an interpretation been established and does that interpret you probably don't know it's off the top of your head uh I'm just curious so industrial I don't know if I so General commercial um do you know what the the um interpretation indicates for that zone currently and I know it's only interpretation I know we don't have any yet and I know it's all kind of hypothetical y um but what what is it that we would allow data centers in The General commercial zoning but with a conditional use permit with a conditional use permit okay yeah all right and then again for Industrial Development we really um amped up our screening requirements for anything with a dock door here's a great example of these big industrial buildings that have dock doors just imagine if you live next door to that and there's semi trucks coming in and out 24 hours a day so we have additional screening requirements for all uses not just warehouses but all uses that have loading docks and we also have a process if you want to do something different so that it can be reviewed on a case-by Case basis the hard part with these big warehouses is that most of the time the land's not flat and square most of the time there's some uniqueness to it there's some topography we don't know where the residential is so it it it's easy to write a code if everything was flat and square and equal um but for the most part most of the vacant land that's left in Reno is challenging to develop so we want to provide some flexibility so you can go through a public review process us if needed if you need to modify any of those standards and then we also allowed warehousing in public facility zoning and we thought well why why like public facility is not intended for warehouses it's intended for schools and libraries and fire stations um so that in our mind really didn't make sense and I don't even know that I can think of a public facility zoning that has a warehouse so we're not taking any entitlement away it was just more of a a catch that we thought oh probably probably doesn't make sense also a lot of times when we have this big warehouse distribution a lot of a lot of them have outdoor storage um sometimes that outdoor storage just gets unsightly they're either storing a bunch of stuff up or they're not maintaining it so we really beefed up our outdoor storage requirements more with uh the landscaping around it and fencing requirements just more of screening of outdoor storage can I ask on the outdoor storage is there a clarification around the outdoor storage of vehicles versus other materials so it depends on how we're using it for instance if it's a car dealership they would fall under their own use of car dealership um I'm trying to think of an example we have outdoor storage where people have parking lots but that would be defined as more of you know a parking lot associated with their business um RV storage also falls under a different category not outdoor storage just more mini storage because we did have one case here that was the landscape vehicle park vehicle parking which was considered outdoor storage and there was no clarification that that would be more like a parking lot versus an outdoor storage space can you think of what that one was it was basically it was a a landscape business that had an outdoor yard area that they were storing equipment and vehicles in so it would be outdoor storage essentially anary to the primary use mhm yeah I don't know that I have a clear answer on that we might have to look on on a Case by case basis because we do have a separate category for landscape maintenance and repairs business and in that case as I recall was there it might have just been purely outdoor storage that their office was offsite so which case it would just fall under General outdoor storage we also this is funny so we have a category if your primary use is outdoor storage we have another group of categories if your accessory use is outdoor storage so different requirements depending on how it's classified we've overanalyzed so many things in this code all right commercial uses big things we talked about this with Planning Commission tattoo parlors um do we want them as a separate category or do we want to lump them in with General personal service and so we took your feedback took it to council they agreed we should lump it in with General personal service we allow General personal service in a lot more areas that is the things like hair salon um getting your nails done laundry mat so tattoo parlor is now lumped in with General personal service car washes we have expanded now to allow car washes in our neighborhood commercial zoning but with a conditional use permit again our concern is to make sure if you're next to residential that we're mitigating those impacts and then drive-throughs we have really kind of changed the way we look at drive-throughs prior to covid we were anti-d drive-through as a city um part of that was we were trying to encourage people to walk and bike and not rely on their cars and then Co hit and we actually needed drive-throughs many businesses survived because of drive-throughs people probably survived because of drive-throughs where they may have otherwise caught in covid so um I think over time we we've looked at drive-throughs a little differently we are very limited in our zoning code on where we allow drive-throughs especially in our main Cor doors and so we've expanded now to allowing them in more areas but with a conditional use permit one thing we don't want for instance is like a a Dutch Bros going in or a um In-N-Out burger right super intense drive-throughs without us having the ability to take a look at them and look at the impacts and so we've beefed up now where we allow them but still with a public review process schools we had quite a few discussions um both with Planning Commission and at the council level on how we want to address schools number one is we went back and we looked at Sparks and wasow County we're all three jurisdictions supposed to have generally the same um regulations for schools that makes sense because the school district there's only one school district for this whole region and yet we have three jurisdictions it sure would help them if we all had the same set of rules so we went back and we cleaned that up and then we combined a category we had defined primary schools meaning kindergarten through 8th grade and secondary schools which is high school and so um again that didn't match what the county and Sparks are doing it kind of created more conflicts so now we just call them schools we're not not looking so much if it's primary or secondary just schools in general and then we've added additional requirements so that anytime a school comes in whether it's a public school private school charter school we have language that says here are some key things that we want to look at across the board all schools and it's the things that we're dealing with with all these new schools right it's the um cars being doing the drop off and pickup where are people waiting where are the school flashers where are the crosswalks so all of that is now um first and foremost of hey if you're doing school know that we're going to ask for these things now one additional thing that came out of council that had not been before you guys is Council does want us to see that schools that have more than a certain number of kids will have to go through a conditional use permit the way AR zoning code is now is that most schools in general um we don't look at the Stu the school capacity they trigger a minor conditional use permit so that never comes before Planning Commission does not go through a public hearing staff reviews it we do send public notice postcards so the public can comment but there's no formal meeting like this they don't have to go to the NAB so um with city council Direction they've asked us to put a threshold and anything over that threshold would have to go through a conditional use permit so anything a new school coming in with more than 400 kids which for the most part is all of our wasow County Schools they will trigger a conditional use permit um a lot of our smaller schools like the charter schools uh some of them are over 400 some of them are not and so the smaller ones especially the ones associated with like churches they would not trigger a conditional use permit they would still trigger a minor conditional use permit so that still does require that we review it we can condition it and we do send public postcards out but anything more than 4 school students moving forward would trigger a public review process hey Angela yeah oh um sorry uh I did want to say that um I know the sentiment with the other municipalities recently Sparks and County um they're applauding uh City of Reno for for this in particular as of recent um there's conversation there at the regional level and so yall are the Trail Blazers on this front um was 400 just like taken as an average U just curious how how you all arrived at that particular number we looked at traffic and we said what would trigger a traffic study and it's um traffic is different for elementary middle and high school so we looked at the the number of students that would trigger it and it was somewhere between 350 and 450 depending on again what school type you're talking about so we kind of met in the middle and said 400 oh okay cuz that Regional that that's been The $64,000 Question of that threshold yes we had lots of discussions with regional okay perfect thank you we're all on the same page not sure all the governing board members are they may change that number right for what triggers a project of regional significance yeah is washer County school districts waved fees for special use permits or is this now going to be no um so they right now all of their schools right now trigger a minor conditional use permit so they are used to going through that process they also have been great at least in the past probably eight months or so they volunteer to go to the NAB that hasn't always been the case they're not required to at a minor conditional use permit you're not required to go to the NAB um but again I think they're in support of definitely reaching out to the community so we've had quite a few discussions with them I think some of their bigger concerns are not so much the new schools but through their modernization plan their existing schools that they are upgrading a lot of their schools um they're keeping but expanding and so we had a lot of discussions from from their perspective what would trigger a conditional use permit for these schools that are expanding and what what's the answer to that so that is um not even related to this just our standard code if you expand my more than 20% or 20,000 square feet it would trigger a conditional use permit okay yep cuz I know like Bond Middle School for instance they're redoing it and are they expanding in and that was a complete tear down M and rebuild of a three-story school so they um they're already through that process they went through a minor conditional use permit so it did not require a public hearing um and we've gotten a lot of push back from the neighbors oh and I think part of it is many of them felt like yes I've always lived next to a school I knew about that but now it's a three-story school and so when you live next door to a three-story school and you're used to a one-story School you I think feel like maybe I wanted to be involved in this and maybe I didn't get the public notice postcard or I didn't see the big sign posted so again I think this process could help to engage some of the community when we start seeing these big changes yeah okay sustainable development this is one that um several members of our Council um have asked us to do what we can from a zoning code perspective to make things more sustainable there's not a whole lot we could do I will say from perspective but we tried to pick up a couple things here and there one of them is from a basic perspective um within our landscape requirements we had a couple different zoning districts where we didn't require trees or or Landscaping like public facility for instance we didn't have a landscape requirement silly um so we I think that was just an oversight so we've added public facility to now require 20% site landscaping and then with our new screening standards and that was that table where we talked about it used to be based on what your zoning District was and now it's based on what your uses so two uses next to each other we require screening we've increased um the tree spacing so it used to be every 30 feet you have to plant a tree we talked to the landscape community and we said can we can we reduce that to allow for more trees and a lot of the discussion was yes you can definitely do that but you have to make sure that you're planting them far apart enough where they can still grow so instead of every 30 feet planting a tree we kind of all settled on 20 feet and so um again we'll be able to get more trees and for every tree you plant you have to have six shrubs so generally we'll get to get more Landscaping through those screening standards another one inadvertently um our when our code update was done in 2021 we took out a requirement that said you have to pave your parking lot can you imagine it' be like the wild west just a bunch of dirt parking lots um so that was an oops that was an oversight so we're putting that information back in the code yes you must pave your parking lot no we don't want gravel parking lots anywhere and then a big one that we've been working on with TLA and the health department is anytime we have irrigation right next to a street and it sprays onto the street or the wind's blowing and the water goes onto the street it really uh degrades that street way faster than it needs to and it's a waste of water so we have a requirement now that no um irrigation like spray irrigation within 18 in of a public rideway yep you can still have drip irrigation but we don't want to see that spray Within 18 Ines of the public RightWay and we have been like I said we did coordinate with Tuma um and they were definitely in support and excited to see this other things that we're doing within our requirements for a traffic impact analysis so typically when you think of oh I have to submit a traffic report it's going to show how much cars are coming and how what the impacts are now we're asking for additional information on multimodal so that's everything from how are people biking to the site and how are people safely walking to the site so we've expanded it to look at not just cars when we do a traffic report but now also to look at that full multimodal perspective and then that last one has to do with solar um we've had a lot of interest I think from from many of this group and other groups that why don't we do more to require solar or incentivize solar um we we we weren't able to get to a good space in requiring solar I think there was too much push back from the community and so we still wanted to say well what can we do to be more proactive and incentivized so we looked at other codes and again there there's not much that we're finding that's really helpful from a zoning perspective but we've seen some jurisdictions that allow for reduced parking in exchange for solar and whether that's a solar panel or full-on solar um parking structures and I think from the reality perspective one of the push backs we get from a solar parking structure is that it makes it tough to meet your parking requirements because you have these big columns as you can see even in that picture um the big columns kind of help um well they break up where you can fit cars and so we thought even better let's reduce the parking and we reduced it by 5% so it's not like a huge parking reduction but our hope is that we can get more businesses to want to do solar parking and and that means you can do less parking requirements Angela um this is great is this just for commercial or is it residential or across across the board fantastic and 5% on residential isn't much I mean I'm I'm hoping that we would see it in the multif family where you have more parking requirements you wouldn't see it you know on a duplex or a single family but um definitely in where you see these bigger parking lots we're hopefully trying to incentivize it and it doesn't have to be like this it could be you said rooftop or however whatever they were there any considerations for removing that cup on warehousing in exchange for solar um internally we talked about it um um I don't our Our concern was that that didn't address um councilwoman Ebert's concerns and because she's in Word four where we're seeing a ton of Industrial Development while it it helps to have solar like I said it doesn't address the issues of 24-hour use and lights and traffic which is what she's getting a lot of complaints about okay Wild Horse protection so this is something we were working with the um horse Advocate groups and they helped us to come up with some language nothing really over the top on this just cleaning it up we um now Define where that Virginia range is and that matches where the Department of Wildlife defines this Wild Horse Virginia range just again to make our code consistent with um Department of Wildlife and then we looked at um how we can better do the fencing so one of the complaints we got from the wild horse Advocate Group is that a lot of times horses will get out of these Fen areas and it's very tough once they catch the horse it's tough to get them back in um a lot of times you know horses sneak out we don't know how they get out so you go back to the gate where you think they came out and the gate's locked so they they we have a new requirement that you have to put in kind of these um I'd call them more like emergency Gates but they're not in your typical place where you would think the gate was they're more spread out um there's some Dimensions 10t wide and again our intent is for these wild horses that get out um we don't know how they get out then Wild Horse Advocate groups would be able to get them safely back in we also have requirements now that you have flagging on any kind of wire fencing flagging so that both horses and the humans can see where the wire um wire fencing is because a lot of times it's hard to see um so a lot of small things like that again this came directly from the wild horse group we didn't come up with it on ourselves this is really something unique and you have to know what you're doing and so those Wild Horse Advocates were um super helpful um at coming up with that language great question on that one Angela um we we we've had the horse Advocates and and just this topic um before us for at least since I've been here a year and a half um with these changes do do you feel like um we will see less of those concerns or maybe no more concerns that we've seen in the last year and a half or or is this just a good step in the right direction um I think this is a small step to address the horse issue oh okay I think there's other things that from a zoning perspective we're not um we can't be a part of you know there's um concerns about as development keeps happening we're cutting off water just natural water sources to a lot of these horses again from a zoning perspective not addressing that so I think they're going to continue those types of discussions okay so um bigger picture Council has also asked that we put together a mitigation plan um so we'll be working with u this the same group to see what we can come up with on that great thank you okay and then I just wanted to give you guys a couple examples of some of the the crazy things in our code that I like I said some of these things have been in here for decades and as staff were like I don't why why why does it say that um so these are some of the things that I just want you to understand why there's so many changes um from a zoning administrator perspect perspective we like to clean these things up so just as an example we have a section in our code that talks about if you're doing a public park and it says okay so if you're oh so if you um you're building a new public park and you're in any zoning District except for the pgos which is that Parks Greenways in open space okay great that makes sense so it's says you know your lights have to be shielded got it that's just a standard anyway um you have to screen any parking or courts if you're adjacent residential zoning great we already have that kind of screening standard anyway and then it says if you have lights in your parking lot greater than 3 feet in height you trigger sight plan review I mean I can't even think of a parking lot with lights that are three feet I I just I can't think of any parking lot I've ever seen with lights that are 3 feet in he so this to me is just like stupid why don't we just say all lights will trigger a site plan review but then again like this a parking lot why why just having a parking lot with lights trigger a site plan review so that whole concept to me just seemed crazy um and a big waste of time and really a hidden Easter egg because again who who actually reads line C and says oh okay I trigger site plan review because I'm putting lights taller than three feet in my parking lot so we deleted item C because that just didn't make sense another fun one so this has to do with our setbacks so when you're looking at our single family zoning we have setbacks on how far your front of your house has to be from the property line and your side and your rear so this one is specific to your rear yard setback so how far your your house has to be from your back property line so the rear yard for each partiel may be 10 feet if one side of the yard is at least 20 ft wide and contains a minimum of 400 square ft of a maximum slope of 7 to one basically of land so we read that we're like okay so my my rear setback can be 10 feet but only if my yard or my neighbor's yard has a sides of 20 feet wide but only if it's 400 square feet of of space but only if it's sloped with a maximum of 7 to1 I don't even know what 701 looks like that seems like pretty steep but I don't know so my point is like this is really hard to administer I don't know what the intent was here so we clean that up one more okay so now we're on our side setback requirement So within the rear setback and the larger of the front setback or 15 ft from any property line so just that that sentence itself I don't know what that means my rear setback and the larger of my front setback or 15 ft from my property line any portion of my building that exceeds 12 feet in height has to have an additional 1 foot of sidey yard for every not food foot over 12 feet height so again we staff we looked at that we're like I I don't I I I got nothing am I changing my side setback or my rear setback or my front setback what does this impact so this is the kind of language that we um we just go in circles trying to figure out what does that mean how do we interpret that so we said let's take that kind stuff out none of us understand we get the intent is probably you know to have that step back but the way it's written I I got nothing doesn't make any sense so was the language entirely removed or was it just fessed so it's kind of more in layman's terms it was deleted it was buried and uh okay yeah all right okay now we didn't we didn't make it completely go away in the fact that we still have um that side setback we call it that step back so any portion of your building to 24 ft meaning more than two stories you have to step back anything above that so you're really just falling back on other clear language or tables somewhere else and yeah this is all just noise MH and confusing very confusing okay so again big things since we talked to you back in um February and March when we met with you and kind of went through all these changes again just as a reminder we did remove anything related to tree protection because because we've been given direction to pull it out and do that separately anything tied to signs we pulled out we're doing a separate sign text Amendment um we had as a group talked about excess parking I think you had brought this one up um we had initially proposed we had a requirement that if you provide more parking than our code allows we kind of penalize you by making you add extra Landscaping so we're keeping that um and the way it's worded is that if you have more than 150% of the required parking so again a lot of math there because you have to first figure out how many parking spaces are required more than 150% of that you have to provide additional landscaping and it's based on um 10 square feet of landscaping for every parking space above and beyond that 150% so this really impacts your bigger um parking lots you typically wouldn't see this on a small parking lot but let's say you have a big shopping center and they have a ton of parking this would require now that they have more Landscaping so we kept that language in um again we because we just generally don't get a lot of big parking lots these days but if we ever get another big shopping mall this is where it would come into play well and I guess if there is concern with that with the solar now included maybe there's a way to tie that in somehow so you're not I never felt as though the adding of the trees was a pen was penalizing but this could be a way to I guess if if they really need need that then they can add the solar and not have to do the additional but something to think about and definitely too you know I think one of our our biggest um Urban heat island challenge areas uh is the airport right because it's just it's a bunch of just flat um concrete and so this is kind of a great example of if we have these big parking lots it does help to have Trees and Landscaping so from that perspective I think it definitely helps to bring down that um that heat effect and just again make us a better more green community so um not necessarily a bad thing I think I probably made it sound like it was a bad thing but it's not a bad thing but we did keep that okay and I just have one change from the red line that went out initially we had removed um everything in this kind of two ABCD and it's it's related to gaming so there's some language that says um basically when you have a gaming establishment come in and this is for things that um restricted gaming so uses with 16 or fewer slot machines we have some requirements and you have to have say you have two two businesses next to each other maybe you have I don't know a grocery store with slot machines and next door you have a bar with slot machines so this regulation identifies well they have to be separated by a solid wall and you guys can't share bathrooms and kitchens and and so from a zoning perspective we were like why why does zoning regulate that that should be something the gaming um control board regulates but we had some some comment from um The Gaming Community and they said whoa whoa whoa this is actually a good thing um they do this down in southern Nevada and so we were just unaware this is actually a worthwhile thing to have so staff had initially recommended that we take this out we are now recommending that we leave it in not proposing to make any changes to the wording just leave it in as code AS is written today so that is the only change that um I have from the red line version that's in front of you but I wanted to open it up um to any other questions that you guys have this is technically the opportunity for Planning Commission to make recommendations to council that are formal recommendations you can choose to approve deny or modify anything and we'll take that to city council for a first reading great well thanks as always uh really appreciate all of your presentations and all of the hard work that's gone into this I'm glad we actually get to formally make a motion on this tonight um does the commission have any questions or comments for Angela before um we move into discussion or motion yeah oh sorry go ahead commissioner VTO uh I just wanted to address one of the the concerns that was raised by uh during public comment uh Tyler asked about the Cabaret license and I know this has come up a lot and I also understand we're very far along in this process is that something that's going to be addressed or can be addressed by Council so I will add some background to this back in 20121 we were just coming out of covid and we had a lot of bars that were coming back with DJ trivia that really was like the the start of it all and we considered DJ trivia to be live entertainment and our zoning code did not allow live entertainment at places that were zoned um like a bullies or you know one of these neighborhood commercial bars and so DJ trivia was like man you guys have to do something to allow me to do DJ trivia and so we said that's a good point like we we should look at live entertainment as a bigger picture so we did a complete zoning code update specific to live entertainment and now we allow live entertainment everywhere every single zoning District allows it but we have rules and so you can have live entertainment inside up until I think 11:00 p.m. so if you want to have DJ trivia at your bar or at your restaurant you can do that now by right no entitlement straight to to you know you can just do it um you do have to get a business license and everything a caby license to do any kind of live entertainment from a zoning perspective though we said as long as you're doing it indoors up until 11 o'clock you can do it by right for any business after 11 that wants live entertainment we're going to condition a require a conditional use permit now that did go to Planning Commission did go to council we had a lot lot of discussions with Council about the downtown area in particular and we said should this be um relevant to downtown right where we have 24-hour towns and and so or 24-hour businesses um and the answer was yes they wanted live entertainment to have to go through a conditional use permit that does not limit your ability to have a bar or a restaurant or any other business 24 hours a day so this is specific to the hours of the live entertainment component and I think that's one thing that maybe a lot of business businesses are not understanding if you can do a 24-hour business great we're not limiting that um but if you want live entertainment anywhere in the city after 11 o'clock at night it's a conditional use permit so any business that's been operating they have a cabaret license let's say they've been in operation for 20 years no we're not coming after you right as long as we can prove that we have some kind of documentation that said you were doing live entertainment and so we go back and we look at the history of when we gave you a business license um if we have anything in our notes from the last you know however long you've been in business that says yep we've approved you for live entertainment then you are grandfathered in we're not going to take that right away from you just like you know our zoning code changes all the time we don't make you close your business if now your use is not allowed in that zoning District this is no different if you can show that you were approved through the city for live entertainment you maintain that forever so any new business that comes in has to follow today's rules and that's across the board doesn't matter if it's live entainment or anything else any new business follows today's rules so if you're a bar you want to operate 24 hours a day in downtown you can do that because we allow that but if you want to add that live entertainment singing dancing karaoke musicians that would be live entertainment anything past 11 o' requires a conditional use permit I have a question about that just to clarify or for my edification the individual that spoke earlier it seemed he was concerned that there was um obviously different uh entities had different entitlements in the example you just gave there was a period of time where there was no live entertainment was it possible during that era where someone came forward and received an entitlement to have live entertainment past 11 okay so is it possible that some of these examples that were shared over public Comet some of businesses maybe during that early era early era received uh an entitlement for maybe to go till 1:00 am yes um so there may and I don't know the specifics he was talking about exactly um but is it possible that maybe some of the confusion is resulting from prior entitlements um even during an era before live entertainment okay thank you and so what we have done is we now have a spreadsheet that is um we started out with just the downtown area and we pulled up every entitlement that we've done that's related to live entertainment so that we can better track it with our Cod enforcement team and then we said well let's also go beyond that so for instance West Second Street it's a karaoke bar it's been in place for probably 25 years so they've been doing live entertainment for many many years they don't have a conditional use permit but they've been there with the same operator same license uh for a long time so we went back and we found notes from 2017 that said we approved them for live entertainment um and so we said okay we will honor that we had some conditions tied to that again it wasn't wasn't clean by any chance because it's written in a note of a business license it's not a conditional use permit but we are honoring all of those agreements so we're pulling up all the the licenses that we have um in town and we're doing the research to figure out did we ever approve it that that business could have live entertainment now that would be tied to that business owner where a conditional use permit is tied to the land so that's the difference too so um Tyler who was just on the phone so he's had a he's had a bar it's the Emerson and he's owned it for quite some time he did not have to go through a conditional use permit because we found notes in the system that when we gave him his license we gave him the right to have live entertainment I want to say till 1:00 um so he has gr he's grandfathered in that his as long as he has that license he can follow those rules if he ever leaves and a new bar comes in that new bar if they want to do live entertainment they would trigger going through a conditional use permit so we're trying to kind of catch up um on the history of what we did over the last 20 years it's it's a lot of research um but again we just haven't been consistent because we our rules have changed so much over the years but our our hope is that anytime we get a phone call from a bar owner they can say hey what what do you have on me right do I have a conditional use permit what did I well you know what was I approved for five years ago when I opened it I don't remember so from this perspective we're not proposing any changes to live entertainment all of that was done through that separate text Amendment at this point Council has not given us direction to make any changes I think part of it's on our end we just need to better educate the um business community on what what they are entitled to or what rights they have do you have a followup I do go um applaud you and Lauren and your team for this work I know it might seem like many years and dog years but uh just to remind us planner years like 30 it was it three give or take okay cuz that does tee me up for the the question it's kind of a broader more strategic question of of change management for this type of document uh I I don't think you probably want to go through another three years every time you may might want to make a needed adjustment on a chapter or a section um is there a plan to allow or Empower staff to make minor changes you know in a transparent way and so forth akin to what we would do with minor site reviews site plan reviews right where administratively you're like yeah this no longer makes sense let's just change this and we'll bubble it up to Planning Commission as an FYI like this this this change was made and for larger changes we'll maybe go through a more formal process like a major site plan review akin to that right is there going to be something like that or or no okay there is not um we do have we've added some like what you call it a scrier error so if we catch that maybe there's a reference that was wrong or you know something that was inadvertently left out we can make that change but truly any change needs to go through that public process right and and not trying to skirt that just trying to find a way to where we can streamline processes without compromising the public review process so then my next question would be what would trigger another review it is it just a matter of someone 10 years from now Carrie saying you know what let's go through that again or is like is it arbitrary or is there something specifically that triggers this review process Council has to initiate a change to our zoning code so if we have like for instance they've initiated us to update our sign code uh um to create an Adu ordinance to uh update our telecommunications ordinance so there's a handful of things that are in process now that they've already given us direction to update and I think the the reality is we know there's always going to be a need for change so we'll just keep making a list and we'll probably come back in a year and ask Council like hey we've got this long list of things well you would initiate another change but I um there's always going to be one-offs and that's what we found in this code is is because it's so old and it's just been revamped over and over and over again the things that we find like oh my gosh that was was crazy that they wrote that 20 years ago and we're still dealing with it um so we'll continue to clean it up ultimately I would love to hire a consultant to delete it and start over but I I don't know that that's in the in the plans any time soon okay so then my last question there is [Music] um do you feel like staff in the city of Rena are in a better position now with these changes than we were 3 years ago um um for for moving forward and what's ahead of us or are there areas that you felt we could still discuss tonight that you'd like to kind of bounce back and forth no I think um again from the changes that are proposed these aren't major changes and so this this from our mind is kind of a CLE clean easy fix because there are things that we said like the examples I shown of does anyone understand what that means if we can get rid of those things it makes our lives easier and it also makes the people that actually review it you know the Architects and the engineers and the planners if they don't know what it means they're just as frustrated as we are and the general public too I mean if as a general public um trying to read a zoning code it's so confusing so the you know the more we can do just to make it easier for all of us the better so this is a good first step yeah thanks Angela thanks Lauren I'm ready to support a motion or whatever this body wants to do uh sure thing we don't have any additional or it's not t to this good with this I just had a question about something that was said earlier so we can either approve this and then I can ask my question after might as well just ask the question now before we vote okay it's with regard to the data centers I just you you mentioned that um that would likely when you guys go I know it's tasa right now and you guys don't have it's a blank slate and there's really nothing in place um but the general or sorry yeah The General commercial it only I looked at the Master Plan and there's only one uh there's only one land use under the master plan where it would fit and that would be Suburban mixed use it does not there's no General commercial under industrial or mixed employment are you looking at the master plan or master plan yeah yeah so from a master plan perspective we don't dictate uses we dictate zoning districts okay but the you yeah exactly but why I guess my question is why would we do a General commercial that doesn't fit under the master plan industrial framework yeah let me pull up where we are proposing what zoning districts hold on just a minute oh there we go okay so so this MD which is our mixed use downtown um Innovation District which is where we allow a lot of industrial type uses you're looking at the development code okay yeah um can I do a Shar let's put on this one and did you say MD yes so that MD ID it's uh it's kind of an old part of downtown Reno more like in the six Street area where it allows a lot of industrial type uses so we looked at what is the data center comparable to and again more of um whether it's a warehouse or whether it's more internal Pro um inside processing and so we aligned our uses with that so we've got the the mdid which is that again more of the um Innovation district and we have our mixed use and most of our mixed use is on our corridors such as Fourth Street or Virginia Street Ms we have a lot of Ms in like the North Valleys for instance General commercial we allow a lot of industrial type uses within that General commercial zoning and then we have four different actual um employment or industrial type uses where we're also looking at Data Centers of those that you just named um I don't see any of them fit under indust or mixed employment it's all going to be under under the master plan that is under Suburban mixed use or one of the others and I guess it's because you guys just don't Envision that that's an industrial type so are we talking master plan I'm yes so you you're looking at the development code yes but the development code has to align right am I understanding this with the master plan the master plan highlights a variety and I'm looking at it right now highlights conforming districts zoning districts exactly which is the development code districts master plan districts fall under certain right so when you we look under industrial and we look under mixed employment I see industrial I see industrial commercial I see mixed used airport mixed employment Parks Greenways and Open Spaces public facilities and on and on I don't see any of the ones that you just described and I and I guess my question is is that because just the city or staff or whomever I'm not sure powers that be don't Envision data centers as industrial we they're they they're different than Industrial in that they aren't the same level of noise a lot of times with industrial uses we have people outside hammering making noise they also generally will generate less traffic than a lot of these big warehouses so from that perspective you may see we've we've had interest in some of these smaller data centers that would go into even like a a core not a downtown but in your core kind of inner city area in other cities is where they're going so they they're functioning a lot of times more like an office so from that perspective we need to look at them Case by case but where we would see them typically um that mixed use mu zoning Ms zoning General commercial zoning that is where we allow a lot of the the warehousing the big office complexes more of those types of uses and so okay I guess that that makes that makes sense I just I'm envisioning current data set that exist I'm not going to say any names because I don't want I don't want to get go there but and in my mind those are more industrial you're looking at the lights you're looking at the large buildings you're it's a giant it's basically a giant building um so this is for the future I just wanted to kind of get some insight into what that was potentially going to look like because I think it's important because I don't know I don't know exactly kind of what that would look like because I I think we have different visions of what a data center is and I don't I don't know if I'd want a data center in my backyard um whereas I don't mind a dental office in my backyard um or a law firm or whatever um but thank you I appreciate the answer and kind of all the work you've done here and I think you'll probably get a good um explanation when that the data center that's coming before Planning Commission here shortly they can give you a better example of what theirs would look like because I when we first talked about data centers as staff we also Envision the same one that you're envision more of a prison type looking facility with bright lights and fencing security fencing um but again in talking to a handful of different ones um the ones that they're building don't resemble that same one but we want to look at it Case by case because we don't want if if we are getting what we're envisioning then we're going to condition it differently and maybe even deny it based on the location but if it truly does look more like an office complex and there's not much traffic because there's not many employees there's no industrial traffic then it it really is a pretty um low intensive use great thank you appreciate it do you think these data centers might have their own conditions I mean some some findings specific to Data Centers because of the amount of energy they're drawing the amount of substation infrastructure some of these other ancillary we thought about that too the challenge we have from a z Zing perspective that's not necessarily our lane um they they can't go places unless they have whether it's water or energy from you know a substation and so from a zoning perspective we can't control that and they pretty much tell us this is where I want to go and here's why and we look at it and say okay what are the impacts right it's noise it's traffic it's lights um so how do we address that from a zoning perspective so those those are the kind of things that we looked at and we'll see as they come in um the good thing is we can condition them Case by case so if we do find things like oh each one really has the same issue and over and over as we update the code over time we can make it as just standard requirement rather than a conditional use permit okay yeah looking forward to that one uh do you have additional questions I do not you do not okay uh our commissioners on Zoom do you have any additional questions before I bring it back no thank you sure thing hearing none um entertain a motion for oh can somebody put it back up sorry I make a motion to approve let's see based on compliance with the applicable findings I move to recommend that city council approve the text amendment by ordinance with the edit to Section 8 18345 H2 as discussed second all those in favor I I motion passes unanimously thank you so much uh for your hard work um so before opening item six I'm going to just float the idea of maybe continuing this the next meeting is that possible training just because it's getting late it is yeah absolutely I'm trying to what do we have a busy agenda we do have a fairly full agenda for our next meeting I think we were at five items for next how about the 18th we could we I don't know that we have a quorum for the 18th we do we we that was one of my nyss we do have a quorum for all of our upcoming meetings so actually I'm going to have to back out of the the fourth would that upset Quorum it's actually the fifth the fifth yeah I'm not going to be able to make that one I think we're still good but I will reconfirm with Michelle we can look at the agenda and bump it to a future the training for a future December meeting based on how long the agenda looks how long is the training if it's 15 minutes I could probably yeah I could do it if it's 15 yeah it's not long okay let's do it some quick jumping jacks so I will now open item six training on the importance of land use find okay so we we kind of wanted to go back to a couple things of what is the role of Staff versus Planning Commission versus city council and I found this great little cartoon which I thought oh it's so perfect um so planning commissions are the policy advisors Council are the ones that actually make the policy and then staff has to administer that policy so we all have very different roles in this um that's the fun part about you know working as planning Commissioners you guys give us give us your input you make recommendations you approve and deny projects when it comes to Big policy decisions council's the one that gets to makes those decisions at the end of the day staff just follows the rules that are adopted so generally speaking whether you're dealing with an entitlement or a business we all follow the the exact same process for everything we do we get calls all day long about hey can I open a business here first question is always well what's your property zoned here's my zoning well is that use allowed yes or no okay great so we know the use is allowed and then we get into the detail in terms of have you designed your project to meet all the rules we have so many different codes and regulations just high level the ones you guys probably see more than than not is zoning code obviously um from a building code perspective we want to make sure structurally it sounds and we have all kinds of regulations on that fire code fire plays a huge role in review of what the building is structured to look like like how the site is designed to make sure fire trucks can get around it and then our Public Works design manual which is really more of the engineering side of things they're designing roads they're designing drainageways and all that level of detail so every project whether it comes to you guys as a review or it goes to a building permit follows that same general process now we get questions about well how come the master plan says this how do you guys Implement that or how about the regional plan so here's just a couple other big policy documents ments that I wanted just to kind of highlight because these are things that we think about as we're reviewing projects and while all of these documents are big picture big policy they don't say you shall do this they say generally you should do this right we should encourage infill that doesn't mean we look at anything outside of infill and deny it no no no like again from a policy perspective things that we're trying to make the city better about same with sustainability we don't have a lot of muss or shells when it comes to sustainability but we have things that we're constantly trying to do better um so again it kind of ties into while we don't require that people put up solar panels what can we do to encourage it so all those big picture big policy things really weigh in when we're looking at really just development as a whole now when you guys review something you have a whole different set of things that you have to look at and it all goes back to findings every one of your entitlements has a separate set of findings and generally speaking they all kind of are the same thing right is it compatible um does it follow the development standards meaning if the setback is 10 is it meeting 10 if the building height is 30 feet is it meeting that when it comes to public services and Facilities that is everything from does it have access to sewer lines and water lines um does the police have the ability to serve it does the City of Reno Fire Department have the ability to serve it and just because a a fire truck is not within 8 minutes or 6 minutes doesn't mean that we don't build these things you know our policy documents dictate we're trying to make sure that we can get for instance when you call 911 trying to get a fir truck there within six minutes but if we can't get a firet truck there within six minutes it's it's really on the city to build more fire stations we just don't have any money um but we have things in place that say okay if we can't serve you within six minutes we're going to require that you put in fire sprinklers so that goes back to here's how we kind of mitigate the impacts and then that final one is it detrimental to the public health safety and Welfare and that's probably our biggest one that we deal with is how do you define that right it seems like something that's not black and white So within each of our staff reports it's the same template always starts out with the background and then we go into the analysis and each of these kind of side points is really what goes back to the findings that we just looked at whether it's a conditional use permit or a major site plan review or a major deviation generally the findings fit and match each of these categories so is it compatible with the surrounding uses and we have questions about well why are you allowing Industrial Development next to residential development well the zoning allows it and there's things that we have to do to again address mitigate the impacts and address to make it safe for that neighborhood so just because we may not like the idea of industrial next residential our code allows it and so from that perspective we have to look at it and say okay we don't want to go against code it's allowed but how do we allow that development to happen in a way that's not going to negatively impact that surrounding neighborhood and again each of our staff reports follows the same template so you can always kind of tie these things back to the findings in terms of traffic access and circulation every new development will trigger new traffic that that is a given so the question is have they mitigated their impacts and so when a new development comes in and you say you know what I think you're causing too much traffic we go to that traffic report and it says here's your level of service from a policy perspective our master plan says we're trying to maintain a policy level of service of d right if f is failing we are just under that with a d but that is our master plan policy that we then have to try and Implement when we look at these these um traffic reports utilities and service same thing right have they shown how they're going to provide sewer lines and they're going to build water lines it's not our job to build build it it's their job to design it we review it and then they spend the money to actually do it all of our staff reports also go back to master plan conformance where we list What policies we are in conformance with the the good and bad thing about our master plan it's a very broad document so you could probably find policies to support most projects and find policies to go against all projects um but it's a policy document so we outline the ones that either support or don't support when we're making our staff recommendation and then we also cude a section on public and stakeholder engagement and that's just more of informational of here's when I went to the NAB here's generally the kind of feedback we're getting one thing that from from a planning commissioner perspective you guys are tasked with looking at the opinions of of the community um as from the applicant um and trying to weigh in the pros and cons so keep in mind too A lot of times maybe one voice is heard at these meetings where there maybe a whole community of people that maybe don't agree with that one voice and so we we always have to be cognizant of just because somebody's the loudest in the room doesn't mean that they are the right person in the room um we also have to be cognizant of the one that maybe can't be as vocal we had a a young child come today and talk about you know feral cats or cats that were behind the building and I thought what a great like Community you know activism to get out there and kind of talk about what she was concerned about so whether you're a loud voice or a not loud voice um we really try and take into consideration everybody's opinion um but the big thing too is at the end of the day we are responsible for tying it back to findings and so just because 50 people come out and they don't like it we can't just deny projects because people don't like it it really goes back to the rights of a developer the rights of a property owner and if we can find a reason why it is not in conformance then it's a reason to deny it but just to say you know what a lot the neighbors don't want it so we're going to recommend denial those are the kind of of um denials that get us into trouble you always have to try and find a reason to tie it to a finding not just based on emotion from a public perspective do we do enough you know to get the information out there we do I would say go above and beyond probably what most other jurisdictions do we send out as soon as an application comes in we send out a courtesy notice postcard so if you live within 750 ft or you own property you get a postcard that says here's a link if you want to go check out the information here's what's being proposed here's when it's scheduled for Planning Commission or the NAB so the general public Can it can call the planner and ask questions and then we have the NAB so we at the City of Reno have neighborhood advisory boards Sparks has nothing they have no type of Advisory Board um Washo has citizen Advisory board or cabs they do not not review development projects our nabs do look at development projects they don't vote to approve or deny but they provide input so again Reno kind of has one extra step that a lot of the other jurisdictions don't have because we have that NAB and then we send out Public Notices and postcards we post it in the rgj that's standard that's more of a a requirement from state law the yellow signs is unique toino most of the jurisdictions don't require those big public notice signs um the benefit there is maybe you don't live nearby but it's an area that you work by and so you wouldn't get a postcard so these signs are helpful for people that are walking by or driving by to say oh something's going on I'm going to read about it again what can we do to get the information out and then of course anytime we write a staff report any feedback we've heard this is staff's opportunity to try and address the concerns and I think you know Leah's case earlier tonight on the seventh street so there was a a ton of of comments from the public early on um a lot of changes were made to the site plan staff pushed back on a handful of things and the applicant pushed back on a handful of things and so we kind of met in the middle and tried to come up with something that um maybe they didn't love maybe we didn't love but at the end of the day we were okay with right we we we were comfortable approving something that met our code requirements and so a lot of times there is this give and take from the development community of why don't you just let me do what I want it meets code and we say Well it may me code but let's here's all these concerns and they're legitimate concerns how can we work with you you so we try and do that as best we can understanding that we can't make everybody happy and again we have to be able to tie it to is is this something that if we add this condition and the applicants not willing to accept it are they going to come back after the fact ens Su us and say that came out of nowhere that was arbitrary and capricious um so we have to keep that as staff in the back of our mind and luckily we have great lawyers who tell us don't do that um and and help us to kind of keep an eye on these things before we make too many mistakes did you have a question Manny I did Angela um it was on the first bullet courtesy notice postcards um I remember uh folks the general public requesting if um renters could be included in that because I think the notices were only going to Property Owners property owners and so they're not always notified is that something that uh the city's willing to to do or can do or because it has a financial hit because now we're paying to do more that would have to go through city council okay y yep that I'd ask thank you yep um okay and then at the end of the day everything does go to Planning Commission if it requires your public review and that gives you guys the opportunity to also listen to the public and add or modify any of those conditions of approval so when we are looking at um comments or feedback from the public you know you may be asking I know Manny you and I kind of talk about this in some emails you know H how does staff factor in all of the different input and our first and foremost is is there something we can do to redesign the site in a way that addresses their concerns and if it's a question of you know what I'm proposing five stories and the guy next door wants it to be two stories like that's a pretty significant change probably not realistic if the zoning code allows it to be five stories but if we say Hey you know Mr developer are you willing to maybe plant some tall trees to help screen the neighbor are you willing to push back the you know Second Story of that building so where the guy's bathroom is he doesn't have your bedroom looking in his bathroom window so we try and work through some of those things with the developer as best as we can um we also use that ability to add conditions of approval we don't have that ability on building permits we can't just randomly add things but if it's an entitlement and it goes through this review process we can add additional things so I think that's the other thing people don't understand if it's a project that goes straight to a build building permit it's black and white it either meets code or doesn't we don't get to say I kind of feel like you should add 10 trees just because I feel like it we can't do that at a building permit so when it comes to a public hearing or anything that requires Us St write a staff Report with conditions of approval it require enables us um to add additional things to help mitigate those impacts and then again um we have to make sure that whatever those conditions of approval are is really a logical link um between what they're proposing and the impact and I wanted to give an example when we approve these big plan unit developments you know you've got 5,000 new homes you got two schools you got neighborhood commercial a big development is being approved we often times will say we also want you to build us a fire station or we want you to you know put in a library not really but um things that we in the past have conditioned and the applicant we work with them to do these things so the and when you go back to the the condition that we're imposing is it equally kind of Fairly being imposed or is a project with 100 units coming in and we're requiring them to build a fire station like that would be very inequitable right 100 new units you also have to build a a fire station at a cost of 15 million um that that would not go over if we got sued we would we would lose in a heartbeat but when we have these big developments and we have a proportional kind of Nexus between what they're doing what that development is doing and the impacts on the city we have a lot more flexibility to say hey are you willing to set aside 200 units as affordable are you willing to help us Finance um a fire station but unless it's a big project we also have to be very careful about what we condition we've had a couple of projects where Council has added a condition to pay an affordable housing fee we as staff cannot add that requirement we can't just randomly say you got to pay a fee and you got to pay a fee that would be illegal um same with Planning Commission you guys don't get to say you pay a fee and you pay a fee not okay city council they can do that if the applicant agrees to it then it makes it okay if they're being forced to do it then we get in trouble so again anytime we're dealing with a project and you think man they're adding a bunch of traffic why don't we make them fix the spaghetti Bowl because they're adding all this traffic no no no no no that's not proportional we can't do that so we we we do a lot of kind of that fine balance and that dance between is this you know is this going to get us into trouble if we require that they do this or build this um but for the most part our our our team is pretty good about kind of knowing what's what's appropriate what's not appropriate um but that's something again when you guys are adding conditions just be aware there's things that unless there's truly like a at Nexus um we're cautious about adding conditions where you're randomly making somebody pay for something or build something that's outside of really how much development they're proposing question on that um sometimes we remove conditions right like tonight we did that but it came before us like we didn't suggest to add it right um at some point staff and maybe the the applicant agreed to bring it before us but then it changed course by the time it was presented to us um I guess what I'm asking is is that um should we also be cognizant of those situations where we remove conditions which maybe we shouldn't have yeah I mean anytime we a staff adds a condition there's probably a reason and they can give you the reason why a condition was added um but again if it was just a straight building permit none of those conditions would have been added so at the end of the day if you remove all the conditions it probably you know could have gone to a building permit without any of those and um I don't know that there's any major ramifications by you removing conditions it could impact the the development in terms of well maybe the neighbors wanted it and you took it out um but it's not typically not something that's going to have a huge impact I guess maybe what I'm asking too is that sometimes we are concerned about being sued by the developer but should we be concerned about being sued by our fellow residents for removing conditions not the one tonight but just randomly you could and we we get suited all the time Reno is always in a lawsuit oh goodness um one that we I'm trying to think if you guys reviewed it the Life Church project this is the one over by dman high school did that come before Planning Commission or was that before my time I don't remember it may have just been a um a staff review so staff reviewed a project wrote conditions of approval I think it was just a um maybe a minor conditional use permit and it was um a church B down by demman high school was expanding um the school piece they had an existing school that was part of the church and they were expanding it to more score footage and more students and so the neighbors came out and appealed it and it went to city council and the neighbors concerns um one of them was that the traffic's already too loud and they wanted either the city or the church to put in rubberized Road near them because that would quiet um the streets and they also suggested maybe a big sound wall kind of retaining wall you know in their backyard um and again it goes back to a are any of those things that are truly linked to Life church or are these just existing problems that you have that you're dealing with and you think that um these things will be exasperated so um Council approved the project there was some litigation um back against the the city and and the and the church um so we get sued all the time based on all decisions we make but again every everything is Case by case so you can't just say I'm going to remove this condition and I'm afraid the neighbors are going to sue me it's it really is everything is unique and everything at the end of the day that you guys do can be appealed to councel so ultimately you are step one the neighbors always have the chance to appeal it and kind of plead their case with councel as well okay that's it do we have any further questions anyone on Zoom any anyone still on Zoom uh hearing none I I think we'll go ahead question oh go ahead oh sorry just saying no questions thank you oh okay great well with that I think we'll close item six and thank Angela so much for her time as always thank you guys thanks Angel always instructive we appreciate it and now I'll move to item seven trucky Meadows Regional planning liaison report we have a few folks here that could do it feel like you're best equipped chair go for it um so the last we we've had two meetings focused really on the the same things this just kind of an administrative requirement but we have the uh natural resource plan the public infrastructure plan and then these are ultimately kind of informing the broader trucky Meadows Regional Plan update and what we're doing is having a series of meetings uh one in City of Reno one in waso County one in Sparks um basically to make sure every jurisdiction has a public hearing where folks can weigh in on the adoption of that plan we have done City of Reno and waso County jurisdictions and uh forgive me I can't remember the exact date I think it's early December we'll have the final meeting in Sparks and we'll recommend approval to the regional planning governance board so hopefully that um or we may recommend approval hopefully we'll recommend approval um the tmpa folks have worked very hard uh to to deliver that product so that is the goings on through the end of the year at TM RPA uh so we'll close item seven and move to item eight staff announcements thank you Mr chair uh just a couple quick announcements um Council updates the bill ofis Ranch PUD Amendment and the cavalary cavalary chapel zone change we're both approved by city council since our last meeting um and then as I mentioned previously it looks as if we will have a quorum for all of our scheduled upcoming meetings if if you do have a change uh please let um Kelly or Michelle know as soon as possible that that way we can let applicants know for some reason we will not be having a quorum at the meetings that's all I Hadad off thank you we'll close item eight and move to item nine commissioner suggestions for future agenda items do we have any hearing none we'll go ahead and close item nine and open item 10 public comment uh do we have uh anyone on Zoom wishing to speak under public comment we do have a hand raised on Zoom Tyler Colton great Tyler please unmute state your name for the record you'll have three minutes Tyler Colton thank you I stayed with you guys so I appreciate you uh uh everybody who asked questions to Angela regarding uh Title 18 of live entertainment Angela she does great work there's so much they're doing and I appreciate that but Angela spelled out clearly to you guys they're having now to go through Midtown downtown four Street Brewery District business by business to figure out the hours in which those businesses initially created their hours because the Cabaret license isn't attached to hours it's the business hours you initially signed your business plan with or licens with so they're having to use manpower to figure that out which then code to enforce that would need to go pull up a master list and say oh this business like mine can go till 1 p.m. oh this one can go 24 hours oh this one can go till two which seems a little chaotic also we are trying to grow mid Town downtown we are trying to empower small businesses and with the conditional use permit this only adds an additional $5,000 cost that then goes to the neighborhood input to council another 3month process at the cost of $5,000 additionally to small businesses that potentially could not get approved so once again I'm really asking that you consider and go to council that we create entertainment zones and maybe that is downtown Virginia Street Corridor through Midtown rury District to start because it is is it's just not adding up you know it's a lot of work for and planning doesn't talk to business and doesn't talk to code when code is out enforcing these live ENT conment rules that that that planning had said but code doesn't understand them and in my what I said to you previously there is a business and I'm not going to mention the name that I have the documentation that they just went to business and planning on Virginia Street and they are opening a new bar with no need to get a conditional use permit because they're in a commercial Zone on Virginia Street so it is unclear in Title 18 for live entertainment very unclear still and I appreciate Angela and I know they're working hard but it is not clear and I think you guys really need to address this and take it to counsel before this cleanup is done thank you again for letting me speak to you guys and I appreciate all your hard work thank you for your comments uh anyone in Chambers wishing to speak under general public comment seeing none we'll go ahead and close public comment and move to item 11 adjournment we are adjourned thank you have a nice night y all thank you than youel thanks guys