Chairto, since you were remote, uh would you like me to run the meeting from here? I I would. Uh Commissioner Johnson, that would be great. I was going to ask that once we got going, but uh thanks for uh thanks for asking that in advance. No problem. I'll let you go ahead and call the meeting to order though, just because that would be procedurally correct. Perfect. That sounds great. How's the How's the snow and the weather treating you? Good. Good. falling when I got here. That's good. Do we have everybody in attendance or we get ready to go? I think we're ready to go. Okay. I will now call call to order the uh Wednesday, January 4th, 2023 Reno City Planning Commission meeting and I am not in the building, which means it makes a lot more sense for Commissioner Johnson to take the reigns. Uh he's indicated that he's willing to uh chair the meeting and so long as there's no objection, I'd like to turn it over to him to to chair the meeting. We do that. Thank you, Chair Belto. Uh, so our first order of business is the pledge of allegiance. And with that, I will ask Commissioner Armstrong to lead us, please. To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty, for all. All right. Thank you very much. Uh, Heather, could we have a roll call, please? Alex Velto here. Katie Draculich is absent. Harris Armstrong present. Peter Gower here. Mark Johnson here. Arthur Munos here. Sylvia Villan Noea here. And we do have a quorum. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, next item on the agenda is public comment. This item is for public comment and any action item or for any general public comment. Uh Heather, I'll let you do your intro and then you can let me know if we have any comment for this item. Thank you. It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. We did receive correspondence that was general in nature, not anything not associated with anything on tonight's agenda. I did not get any voicemails and I don't have any requests of speak forms. Anyone in the audience like to make public comment on the general public comment item? Seeing none, we will close public comment and move on to public hearings. Um, I believe I'm just going to verify one of the items on the agenda has been pulled for this evening. Okay. So, uh, for those of you in the audience and watching on Zoom, item 4.4, uh, which is the, uh, LDC23-000016 TCA Leroy Street, uh, has been postponed due to a, uh, noticing error. We will be hearing the other two TCA items this evening, however. So, I just wanted to start with that and we will go from there to item 4.1, case number LDC23-000024, Waste Management Fence. Uh, do we have a presentation from the applicant or is it just straight to City of Reno? Okay, good evening. Uh, Ken Anderson, JK Architecture Engineering for the Record. Um, I have a very short presentation for this fencing. Uh, very basic. So um as you see on this uh first slide shows the existing fence for the waste management project on uh commercial row. Uh there's various type fencing uh consisting of chain link to wood and with some small uh area of uh metal as well. Um this shows all the area of the fencing that's going to be removed uh on it. Um based on the various colors there. Um this next the next slide shows actually what we're proposing to uh install in place of it. If we could go to the next next slide. There you go. Um, all the blue shows the proposed fencing as well as the various locations for gates uh to provide more safety for employees as well as to limit access around the project um by outside um persons that should not be going in. Um, this fence is supposed to consist of or is anticipated to consist of uh open view metal uh a lot sturdier than what is there right now. Um, there have been problems with a lot of the fencing being vandalized and breaking in and uh this fencing is anticipated to help prevent that uh from occurring in the future. And that's literally the entire presentation. Any questions? Um, well, we'll hear a presentation from staff and then we'll call you back if you have any questions. Thank you, Carter. Good evening. It's been a while since we've seen you up here. Yes, it has. Right. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, Carter Williams, assistant planner for the record. Um before you today is a major deviation request uh for to increase the maximum fence height and to reduce uh setbacks um to construct a fence across the project site. Um the site is the waste management east commercial transfer facility. Um it's located in ward 3 uh along east commercial row um bound by the railroad rightway to the north and the truckucky river to the south. um all parcel well they presented the the site so it's a large site so I only have a small sample but I I wanted to touch on a couple things um from that sample excuse me that's the site so the zoning for this site is mixeduse urban prior to 2006 the project um site was located in industrial zoning um which accounts for the industrial uses predominant in the area um currently the zoning ing allows for a mix of high-intensity residential and commercial uses. The master plan designation for the site is urban mixed use. Um here's a sample of the proposed site at the east uh the intersection of East Commercial Row and Sutro Street. Um the minimum setback of 10 feet is requested to integrate the this the fence with existing sidewalk infrastructure um site improvements, topographical features and mature trees. Um Sutra Street is a minor arterial and no sidewalk is currently on the west side. Um there is an existing landscape strip on the west that uh we're looking to protect. So condition number six maintains the 12oot setback on the west side of Sutro Street to allow for a full width sidewalk to be constructed in the future. The proposed fence is to be 8t in height um with a metal material and open view um with manual and automatic gates throughout the site. The specific request um um is to increase the allowed fence height from six feet to 8 feet on the side and rear property lines um and reduces the front setback from 12 feet to 10 feet along the west side of except along the west side of Sutro Street which will remain that 12 foot. So, the current code um does not restrict the height of um fencing placed outside of property setbacks. Um and it also allows for um along the side and rear property lines a 6ft fence plus a three 3 ft of barbed wire. So, this deviation provides more consistency across the site. Um protects natural features on site and provides additional security usually afforded um without the need for barbed wire. This is a view of the existing commit conditions along East Commercial Row facing east, east commercial row facing west, and then Sutra Street facing south. And you can see the that landscape strip where we're looking to push that fence out to allow for future construction of sidewalk. Here are the findings for a major deviation. um through staff's review and analysis, we've identified that um or we believe that it meets the findings. And here's the recommended motion. That concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Carter. Appreciate that. Uh so we'll bring it back to the commission for disclosures. I'm going to start with the those on Zoom. So, Commissioner Gower. Thank you, Commissioner Gower. I am familiar with the site and received and read correspondence. Commissioner Delta, same disclosure. Commissioner Van Weva. Commissioner Van Wa. For the record, I have read correspondence. Commissioner Mun familiar with the site. Read correspondence. Commissioner Armstrong, same disclosures. And Commissioner Johnson, same disclosures. Heather, do we have any public comment on this item? We did receive correspondence for this item. No voicemails and no request to speak forms right now. Okay. Anyone in the audience wishing to make public comment on this item? Seeing none, we'll close public comment and bring it back to the commission for any questions. The applicant or staff, I have a question for the planner. Hello. Um, may you please bring up the visuals of the green screening that you have the the the visuals of the screening with the trees and the like the existing improvements on site. Yes. Okay. So, I have a letter here from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony. I think we all received it. Have you communicated with them at all? Um that comment came fairly late um in the process. So staff wasn't able to identify uh um or identify the impacts of applying screening. This this is the front of the site. What they're proposing is on the the back of the site against the Truckucky River to screen the the facility from the trails along the Truckucky River. Do you have visuals of that? Sorry. Do you have any visuals of that of the rear? No, I No. Okay. And is that going to be part of this projected uh deviation the rear portion along? Yes, it will be. Yes. Oh, okay. So, does the applicant plan to include any greenery? Does it already have greenery, trees, um green screen? They're asking for um evergreen screening. Is that I mean what as a city as a planner with the city is that I mean something that was discussed with the applicant the I I would actually request the applicant come up and speak on that because there were concerns about putting Sure. Yeah. Okay. those um improvements back there. I've uh been on vacation so I just received this uh letter last night as well. But uh you know there's currently already Can you please state your name? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm uh Steve Bowler with uh Waste Management and um regarding that particular comment, um there's already uh greenery. There's, you know, the slopes. So, we sit up higher than the uh than the river. So, it's quite a bit higher than uh than the river elevation. And depending on where you're at on that slope, there's already a lot of um trees and greenery along it. Um, one of the comments even that came back from um, planning at the initial stages is that we're in a um, I think it's an AE zone flood rating and uh, wanting an open fence to it's it doesn't happen very often, but you know theoretically during a 100-year storm you could get flooding into that property and uh, the planning commission actually requested you know that we had more open type fencing such that water could you know come in and out of the property if we ever did get flooding up there. So, um I'm not really sure what we would do. So, it's So, the example we have up here with that fence, is it just going to be exactly like that but taller? Is that what Exactly. Yeah, it's going to be very And I think they both showed a picture of it. It's 8 feet high and for added protection, it actually has the slanted uh pickets on it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Additional questions, Commissioner Armstrong. Thank you, chair. Um, with respect to comments from Conrad Sik of Vallejo or sorry, Valleo Companies, I had a question for the city. Um, part of the public comment was he kind of invoked collaboration that was going on with the city with respect to this waste management project. Um, was this received, you know, in a timely manner for you to consider it or are you able to opine on on his comments or requests? It wasn't received um timely enough to include it in this request, but um we did have a meeting um in collaboration with public works um today actually um and discussed um potential applications that might be coming before this body in the future um to address their comments. But there is a there is a plan and collaboration um between all three parties, the city, Valleo, and Waste Management. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Munoz. Thank you. Uh it's going to be for the applicant. Um just to clarify really quick, the backside that that uh is along the Truckucky River that currently right now is chain link. Correct. Um almost all I think all of it's chain link. Yeah. Okay. All right. So this isn't going to change the visual aspect. It's pretty much the same thing. It's just it'll improve it actually. The chain link's not very attractive. Perfect. Thank you. Any questions from those on the line? Carter, I have a question for you. So, I appreciate the uh the presentation and talking about the findings. I guess one question that I have probably be asking you this again on the next item. Um can you kind of walk me through your process for um the finding about granting the major deviation does not constitute a spe special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and how staff was able to basically you know this is a it's a setback for the fencing and a height for the fencing. Um, so what is it about this particular project that makes that change acceptable as opposed to say uh another facility in the same area that may want to do that? So how how are we how are we from a staff standpoint making that find? So in this area we have a lot of um a mix of uses mix of industrial uses that have occurred over I mean from the previous zoning designations and then we have new uses that are coming in that are residential or commercial in nature. Um, this request I think brings us closer to a point where we have um it acknowledges those uses and and the aesthetic that it brings. Well, like for instance, not providing barb wire um on on these sideyards or against the Truckucky River. So I think that applying um this could be applied to other properties because of that mix of uses and the uh I mean to provide that cohesion between the past and the present. So it's it's maybe less of not constituting a special privilege here as it is looking at this being perhaps an acceptable deviation on other similar projects so that you know we may see something like this again in the future. um because it it makes sense for an industrial yard with security concerns in and around a mixeduse development. Is that am I am I kind of translating what you said correctly? Yes, I would agree with that. Okay. And that was I was just trying to understand because to me it was um it seems less about this site and more about the the ideas behind what they're proposing to do. So I just wanted to understand. So thank you. That was question. Uh if there's no additional questions, there'll be any discussion or motion. So, Commissioner Munoz, I'm ready to make a motion. If there's no discussion, not seeing anybody jump up in the case number LDC23-000024, waste management fence based upon compliance with the pickable findings. I move to approve the major deviation subject conditions listed in the staff report and I can make the findings. Thank you, Commissioner. I have a motion looking for a second. Al. Sorry. Commissioner Armstrong. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I I I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Good luck with your project. Next item on the agenda is item 4.2, case number LDC 23-000028, the littleflower school setback deviation. Uh presentation from the applicant. Carter, I'll look to you. Do we have a presentation from staff? Applicant is online. Okay. So, I'll let Okay. Thank you. After all this time, you'd think we'd still be used to this. Commissioner Johnson. John, I can hear you. Um Okay. Okay. Do you have a presentation that they need to pull up for you? Yeah, I did. You know, there's that little pause um when we're introduced as a panelist, so I was um waiting for it to pop up. Um also with me is Mercedes Delaga, the architect, and I believe um Mike Quilly is going to be with us as well. Would you like me to go first now that we've all arrived? If you're the one going to do the presentation, uh, as soon as we pull up your presentation, you can go ahead and start. Floor is yours. John says the other um participant is sharing. Can you see this now? I think we're actually sharing it in chambers, are we? So you should be able to Oh, you're sharing it in chambers. Okay. Yeah. So I need to get rid of the share on my side. Is that what's going on? Yes, please. Okay. So you have it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Chair Johnson, commissioners John here on behalf of the applicant Little Flower School. Um, this is a major deviation to reduce the building setback next to Cassazz Street from 28 feet to 14 ft as proposed and a change in the height to setback ratio. Is staff controlling the um staff controlling the slides? Yeah, I guess they have to. It's not working on my end. Um this is um an exhibit that we put together. Um the principal and the reverend of Little Flower School and Church went doortodoor in that band of units. Given the nature of the request that is a setback variance, we targeted that area. Anybody that we thought would be possibly affected. And in short, uh you can see the addresses, the people that were engaged. Um and nobody expressed any concerns with the subject request for the setback variation. Next, existing school. Um this is uh a depiction of the elevation and the mass of the existing school 10-ft setback. And then the next slide please as proposed. So we have two measurements actually three measurements that are important to this. One is that we're actually impro increasing it to 18.7 feet to the bulk of the building. Uh there is the pop out over to the left of the screen near the entryway where that is um 14.7 ft and then you can see the height as proposed is 28 feet two stories. Next uh a different perspective on it. I think this is probably the exhibit that tells uh the whole story because the 28 foot setback is required and the actual setback is 74 feet from the houses the nearest houses across Kazaway. That's the sum of the width of Kaza Street plus the 14 foot minimum plus um 10 feet on the other side of the street. So um it shows the if you can look at the blue outline of the proposed building you see existing at 10 feet um the bulk of the new building at 18.7 ft and then as I mentioned in the one that showed the perspective 14.7 ft for uh the minimum setback in the new structure. Next, different perspective, but just trying to give the commission the whole scenario here. So, going down Cassa Street, the school existing on the left, the existing residence that's closest to it on the right, you can see in this case it's all sideyards. Um, that school, that element of the school, that building at its current location is 10 feet set back. And again, that's where we would have the minimum 14.7 feet uh with the increased height to 28 ft. Next is the height to setback ratio. Um, basically what we have here is a height of 286 feet 28t 6 in a setback of 14 ft. You can see the property line referenced to the front of the building. It's just over two. And so, uh, staff said the best way to deal with this is let's request this to a 3 to one. It gives a little bit of flexibility in the issue even though we're barely over two 2:1 height to setback ratio. And uh I think is the final slide next please. Why are we requesting this? Um in the zoning code as it's written today, all yards located adjacent to residentially zoned property shall be set back one foot for every foot in building height. So 28 feet, right? 28 foot setback, 28 foot building height as proposed. Uh we pasted in the section of code that relates specifically to a school. And in C, you can see that's um same idea, residentially zone property to set back one foot for every foot in building height. The interesting point here is that for whatever reason the code uh the definition of adjacent in the code and the setback gained from cassaza is not considered an adjacency. So in a in the real world we have 74 foot of separation separated by a collector street and only recognized as 14 feet 14.7 ft and um I would just share with commission that the the design of this has been going on and evolving since 2016. Um it was obviously under the old code at that time measured setback actual versus the defined setback has evolved from one code to the other. And there was something in in that translation that got us to this point. And next slide. I'm not going to go into the findings, but this is not something that we see a lot of. At least I haven't. And so I'd be glad to touch on the findings uh one through four if the commission wants to um hear from us on those. That's all I have. Thank you. Here for any questions. Also Mercedes Dela Garza. I don't see Mike uh Quesy on but I thought he was going to be here and uh we're both here prepared for questions you might have. Thank you. I'm here too, John. Oh, there you are. Thank you, Michael. There's Michael. He's the big wheel with the Reno Dasis leading this effort. Okay, thank you, John. We'll get the presentation from staff and then get back to you with any questions. Thank you very much. Carter, welcome back. Thank you. Hello again, commissioners. Um, Carter Williams, assistant planner for the record. Um, again, before you today is a major deviation. Um this is for school setbacks and compatibility um setbacks from residentially um residentially zoned property adjacent to the site. Uh this is an extension of a site plan review um for an expansion of a school um that was approved in October of 2022. Um and this application intends to comply with um conditions um associated with that case to implement the project. The property is located within Ward 3 at the northwest corner of Kitsky and Plum Lanes. The zoning is public facilities. Um and it is is within a community center within the structure plan. Um the residential uh properties adjacent to the site are to the north and the east. The uh master plan uh land use designation is public quas public. So the request before you today and excuse me but the um it's to change the school setback ratio from one foot of setback for each foot of building height to one foot of setback for every two feet of height and also to change the residential compatibility stepback ratio from one foot of setback for every two feet of building height to one foot of setback for every three feet of height. um for the benefit of the the public um for understanding. Um so this I think I'll go over this difference between setback versus setback requirements. So setback requirements are the required distance between a building and the property line from the point where the building meets the ground. So from the ground up to the sky, that's the setback. We know that. But the stepback requirements are the distance between the property line and the building um and the setback increases um as the height increases. So as the building grows taller, this requirement encourage encourages a step design. RMC currently requires a 1:1 height setback ratio. So for a proposed height of 28 ft, um it would require a 28 foot setback. Um the applicant requests a 14T setback. Um for the compatibility requirement, the this was address this is being addressed because it accommodates the parapit wall. Um since the parapit is four feet or less, it's not included in the height um requirement. So the the parapit would then encroach into that that area that's identified with that that line, the 3 to1 line there, which would have been 2 to1 before. So the proposed site um Casaza Drive acts as a substantial buffer between the proposed addition and the residentially zoned property to the north. and staff believes it is adequate to address the um compatibility requirement. Here's the proposed building elevations along Casaza Drive proposed existing and proposed and then the findings for a major deviation which staff finds um that this application as proposed meets all all findings and then the recommended motion and I'm available for any questions. Thank you Carter. Appreciate that. Uh once again bring it back to the commission for disclosures and start again online with commissioner Gower. Thank you Commissioner Gower familiar with the site. Commissioner Volto Commissioner Volto same disclosures. Commissioner Villain Wo familiar with the site. Commissioner Muno same disclosures. Commissioner Armstrong, same disclosures. And Commissioner Johnson, same disclosures. Hit the button. Heather, do we have any public comment on this item? We did not receive any correspondence for this item. No voicemails and no request to speak forms. Anyone in the audience wishing to make public comment? Seeing none, we'll close that and bring it back to the commission for questions. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant or staff? seeing any. I guess it's up to me. I'll ask a question. I have to throw it out first. So, Carter, two two questions for you. Um, the first one, I guess, ties back to what you were saying about uh that this had a site plan review and that this was a condition the site plan review. Um, and and this may be one you can throw to Jason if you want to, but how does that happen? How do we how do we basically approve something in a you know one version of an entitlement process that requires a second entitlement process? Shouldn't how how come it didn't occur at the same time? So, we conditionally approved it um with that with that condition um understanding that there with the applicant understanding that there was the potential for it to not be approved uh under the major deviation and the applicant also has the the opportunity to change their design so that they push the the building back. Um there there were there were other options but um okay so all of the all of the issues from a site plan review with respect to traffic and compatibility and all of those things that's not what we're looking at tonight. That's all been sort of addressed. That is correct. Um, so rather than having us look at the the whole, you know, uh, item as a whole with the school expansion and the use and all that, we're the the the way that this has come through is that that's been determined at an administrative level and now we're just looking at this major deviation that has continued through beyond that. Is that correct? That is correct. I might be talking about that later. Um and then the sec second question is the same one about um that I said before about how this is how does staff justify that this does not um provide uh special privilege for this particular project. The fact that we're you know giving a major deviation for a pretty substantial height to setback change. So the there's specific site conditions or off-site conditions rather along the street with the with with the street that I mean provide a a buffer between the the project and the um the residentially zone property. Um so if staff were to receive a separate application for another site that had similar conditions that we would receive a a similar result from from us recommendation. So we do not believe that this is a a particular it may be particular based on the the criteria of the site but not particular based on the the specific parcel or or any other. Okay. So again, it's kind of like the last the last time. The fact that there is a a road that is a de facto setback, as the applicant pointed out, that's the main rationale for staff looking at this being an acceptable setback from the adjacent residential property that and and it is also located within a community center um which are identified as being um having similar uses. Um, I think that this this requirement um may be more relevant if it were within a um a neighborhood um which we we would probably not support as easily um because of the the the conditions of the the surrounding uses for the site. So So one of the one of the the overlays for this particular site is different than what would happen in another potentially similar situation. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Commissioners, any additional questions or discussion? Commissioner Veloa, I can make a motion, but I did just want to before making a motion, thank you for asking those questions because it's important that we understand why this is set apart from others who may be applying for a similar application and if that, you know, if that application comes forward and is denied, at least we know, you know, what sets this apart from maybe that potential application that comes in front of us in the future. So, thank you. Um but uh for the motion should have been more prepared but Commissioner Villan for the record based upon Commissioner Villanuva based upon compliance with the applicable findings. I move to approve the major deviation subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Thank you Commissioner. I have a motion looking for a second. Commissioner Gower, I'll second. And I'll just make the comment that I appreciate this change in the um the process that the city of Reno adopted relative to the variance process that we had previously that allows these types of applications to move forward with a different set of findings and allows staff to look at it with a little bit different perspective. And um I think it's a a positive change as a result of the the master plan code update work that we did. Thank you, Commissioner. I have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I I I opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you all commissioners. With that we will move on to the next item 4.3 uh case number LDC23-00000015 TCA Mayan multifamily. Start with a presentation from the applicant. Good evening commissioners. For the record, Andy Derling with Wood Rogers representing the applicant. Uh with me also tonight uh are representatives from Lumison Associates, the engineer for the project as well as Headway Transportation, the traffic engineer and uh representatives from the uh applicant themselves. Uh we have a few cases before you tonight and so there is some overlap and and I'll explain kind of as I go here. Um the project sites are located on the south side of uh Interstate 80 uh right about at the uh Rob Drive interchange consists of two parcels um that have uh a split master plan of suburban mixed use and single family. Um the suburban mixeduse area is is zone general commercial. The single family masterplanned area is zone SF3, three dwelling units per acre. Um the the property is is vacant um and has uh has had some historical grading that was associated with the previously approved special use permit for hillside development cuts and fills as well as disturbing a major drainage waste. So that has all been um approved previously and and kind of building off of that um for this this new case. Um as I mentioned, we've submitted this in in three parts. Uh but really they're they're kind of interrelated projects. Um, but what's important to note is all three of these can stand independently on their own. Uh, when you look through your your staff report and look at the civil plans, each civil plan can stand on its own with the infrastructure necessary to serve each of the different phases. The reason that we broke them up uh is because we've got three indivi individual independent um residential product types. There's a multif family project, which is this case in front of you. uh a town home project which is next and a single family detach project which unfortunately had a a noticing error and you'll see at a future meeting. Um so just to kind of point out a little bit uh on this slide here. Uh the green area is the multif family area uh that we're talking about right now. The yellow is the town homes. The blue is the single family detached. Each of these plan sets uh has the backbone infrastructure. So it's the extension of Rob Drive and then a new collector roadway that terminates into a culde-sac. And then there's an emergency only, it's a gated access um just for emergency vehicles down to uh Leroy. Um to the south of us is a small pocket of some unincorporated county area. Um surrounding it to the south is um city of Reno um kind of smaller lots uh single family vacant properties to to the east of us that are that we'll we'll talk about a little bit during my presentation. So, this multif family request is a conditional use permit for the development of more than 100 units. Um, and cuts uh greater than 20 feet. Um, it's a just about a 14acre site. We've got 200 units, so about 14 units per acre. Um, these are threetory walk up um tradition, fairly traditional um three-story walk up um apartment buildings. They do have garages on the first floor uh single car garages. Um so 391 parking spaces are provided which includes the surface parking as well as the the garage parking. Um about six acres of open space. A lot of that open space is down on the south side which is slope area and down to a storm drain outlet um that was part of that original major drainage way disturbance. Um it also as I mentioned it includes the extension of Rob Drive and this new collector road. Um the intent is that that the applicant would serve as kind of a master developer similar to what you would see in maybe like a PUB or other um situations. This has straight zoning. So we're using the city zoning. We're playing within the rules of the zoning code. So there was no need to have a land use action as part of this. It's really just the entitlements for the development itself. Uh and as I mentioned again stressing, you know, emergency access only from the terminus of that culde-sac uh to Leroy. looking at the far multif family architecture as I mentioned three-story uh walk up um the garages on the ground floor um they're one two and three uh bedroom units uh one of the um issues that staff raised that we worked through with them was uh proximity to parks and access to parks um there's condition in your staff report and then some of these exhibits are attached as exhibits to that um the project is located within the radius of um several parks so the city of Reno's master plan establishes service territories or service radi of 1 to two miles for neighborhood or community parks. Um so what this exhibit demonstrates is that you know there are three existing um community parks that are located north of this. They're all within that onem service territory. So from a from a master plan standpoint we meet that um requirement. Also to the south there's other recreational opportunities um several trail heads along the Tricky River Trail and then uh Mayberry Park which provides some access to uh public lands to the south as well. Um, additionally on site, um, we will have the opportunity for some private amenities. Um, you know, the multif family, which we're talking about, um, in this case, kind of a traditional package of amenities, um, clubhouse, uh, and recreation facility here, possibly a pool, um, some other recreational areas um, that would be in some of these open areas to meet the requirements that are in code for multif family projects. It has to have a top lot and other certain types of specific amenities. In addition, looking at kind of the broader project, there's some opportunities for trails and other little pocket park amenities. Um, some of these may just be sort of benches and viewing areas. Some may be more programmed. Um, and that's really what that condition speaks to in your staff report. One of the other kind of major um things that we really needed to address was the overall traffic considerations. Um, understanding that, you know, this side of Interstate 80 is is all undeveloped. It's this it's this little kind of insular um uh niche here that consists of four property owners. Um so we have the TCA project owners who are before you tonight. Um the FJ management, which is the former Flying J. Um it was it was proposed as a truck stop um 15 years ago or so. They're not in the truck stop business anymore. That's not what we're talking about tonight. Um but uh that's that's not being contemplated this time. um the Heiser property which is controlled uh by a local developer and then a fourth developer over here. Three of the four are currently working together and have been working on a comprehensive um transportation and infrastructure plan to be able to cost share some of these improvements as well as present to you more of a comprehensive plan for for this area. And so, um, Lauren Chilson with Headway Transportation is with you, um, to with us tonight, prepared a comprehensive traffic study that looked at all these properties over here, um, with estimated uses, um, coming from those property owners in order to quantify, you know, what the traffic what the overall traffic uh, impacts are. The TCA project itself itself generates a small fraction uh quite frankly. Um just about 3,000 daily trips and and between 200 and 240 peak hour trips that are generated just by the TCA projects. Um and then um the proposed improvements um would include um modifications to the interchange uh potential roundabout at the terminus of of the extension of Rob Drive um on the south side there. And so what um staff asked is is just kind of an understanding of kind of the phasing of these transportation improvements which I would add you know as per the conditions requires us to seek approval from NDOT. Um we have informally started that process. We don't have an actual permit to submit yet because we don't have a project yet until until this body approves it. Um, and once we do, we would we would seek that formal approval, but we haven't informally um met with them. Um, submitted the traffic study to them, waiting for feedback so that we can start that schematic design of the interchange improvements. Um, Lauren put this together with Headway. Um, it's kind of a three-phased approach to be able to address um the traffic uh capacity needs for the interchange. Um, the first phase would really just be the the roadway connection. So, extension of the roadway, um a stop, you know, basically a stop sign on this uh extension, a new um on-ramp kind of on-ramp left turn lane that would join on the east current existing eastbound loop ramp. Um with these improvements, um that garners, uh a peak hour traffic volume capacity of about 1500 trips. Um the existing trips that that are in the area coming out of the McQueen area is about just over a thousand trips. the TCA project at the at the PM was was adding 240 um trips and so that leaves an additional capacity of about 14% or 220 peak hour trips looking forward now that's that's the that was the minimum kind of requirements that really TCA needs to deal with but looking forward with the other projects that are coming online and and that comprehensive planning effort um kind of pages two and three are are very similar. It really is um the expansion of lanes and turn lanes over the uh o on the um overpass itself. Um some additional turn lanes on the north terminal of Rob Drive there. Um some additional turn lanes on the south side here. Uh all still re re remain in in stop condition or yield conditions. Um and that gains uh an additional three you know up to 310 peak hour trips or about 19%. And the ultimate buildout uh would include signalization of both the north and south um sides of the interchange. And that allows for um remaining capacity of about 61% and that makes up that additional capacity that's necessary for those additional properties on the south side. So probably you know TMI for you, but it's it's pro providing you with um kind of a um a robust um planning resource to say look you know we're not just looking at this as peace meal. are looking at this as part of a bigger, you know, a bigger um development over time and and acknowledging the fact that, you know, comprehensive planning like this is is very valuable for the community and the city. So, with that, uh we are in agreement with staff's recommendations and uh the conditions and would be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you, Andy. We'll get a presentation from staff and then I'm sure we'll have some questions for you. Brooke, good evening. Good evening, commission. My name is uh Brook Oswald. I'm a planner with development services. Happy New Year's to everyone. Just uh the applicant did uh representative did a very nice job of of going over the overall site and location. Uh this is a unique site of uh who have been to this site. It is isolated in many ways. Uh we do have the connection down off Leroy, but because of the topography and the access, it really comes off that Rob Drive. We're looking at approximately 13.9 um acres on this and we do have those uh conditional use permits. That's for over the 200 units of those multif family units. As we looked at this um staff analyzed the site and building design looking at that grading and then the availability of those public services and infrastructure. Uh just this is going on that Leroy point just so we have a reference in the future as we look at maps. Uh this is the Rob change Rob Drive interchange with I80. Going on our um our reimagine Reno, we're looking at uh suburban mixed use in this area. As the applicants represent uh also stated, it does have a single family which you see down at the the left portion there and then the top is a general commercial. Um the multi or sorry on this particular site the the the multif family is is located in that general commercial. There are several uh reimagined Reno um policies that this is in line with that con concern concurrency management. Uh as was mentioned uh staff has worked with uh we do have another application in on the hiser. We we've been working with the other I've been working with the other planner on that. I will be taking over that project and keeping a consistency with this. Um, additionally, we're looking at how those services will be provided, making sure that we're we're um increasing that infrastructure, uh, providing emergency access and other requirements as we move forward. Uh, this does start to provide that community connection. Uh, we will have pedestrian access that will come down on Leroy. It will be just emergency access down to Leroy and limited to that, but we will have pedestrian access. Uh, we do have open space, that open space and parks. Uh we looked at that grading transition to that unincorporated county as we look come off the hillside there. We do have um additional uh county properties um down below and and looking at those transition as we go to those larger lots and how that will happen. And then uh once again that networking connection this this site as we'll kind of see. The site's really unique. It has hit uh vacant uh construction has uh taken place at different times and we we've looked for development. Uh a lot of that was prior to 2007 and that development never happened. Grading had begun uh stopped and now there's a current grading permit on that site. Uh as was mentioned, we did start from that initial grading from there and then so this was analyzed from the finished grades that would be proposed from that previous um that they've already started work on. Once again that Leroy Rob drive and we're and as Steph looked at this we really are looking it was very important for us to look at the whole wholeity of this whole uh portion uh because it is unique in that it is isolated many ways the topography there drops off the back and there's it access becomes very hard and difficult so you have the emergency off Leroy and and really that concentration on Rob. So, we wanted to make sure as we look at this in future development that that we are consistent and have an understanding that this will be be looked at as a whole in entirety. So, these are the properties we're currently looking at right now and um and then the Heiser project that we have in the LDC 003 uh will come is coming in and we're we're looking those together. As we go look at the larger picture, there are the other related um projects uh coming in. We will not be talking about the one to the left tonight uh but the town homes and the multifamily. As you can see through this, there's a series of trail and park networks that will all be open to the public and increase that availability not to just this neighborhood but those surrounding neighborhoods and that connectivity uh to those lower neighborhoods up to the Rob Drive and those areas up there uh through safe uh bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. Quickly just going over the project site. It does meet all the architectural standards uh requirements. We are seeing any uh additional of landscape buffering and uh other open space that that provides that buffering to those surrounding properties. This is just looking at the project uh that we'll talk about next which is town home project and that main backbone running along the top of the roadway there. As we look at those conditional use findings, staff could make all the findings and does recommend approval of the project. Um, a number of comments have been received related to uh specifically to this project, but the projects at a whole in the development of this area. A large portion of those were related to traffic. Other concerns are are that um compatibility and connectivity down to Leroy Drive. I think as we looked at this, that was very important to us that once again that access will be emergency only on to Leroy, really limiting any vehicular traffic or anything else uh coming through that area. So with that, I'll leave you with the motion and uh once again, staff can make all findings. Thank you. Thank you, Brooke. Appreciate the presentation. I'll bring it back once again for disclosures and once again I'll start with Commissioner Gower. Thank you, Commissioner Gower. I spoke with the applicants representative uh received and read correspondence and am familiar with the site. Commissioner Belter, same disclosures. Commissioner Villain Wave, I've read correspondence and I visited the area. I didn't visit the actual site. Um, but I visited around the area. Commissioner Munoz, I'm familiar with the site. I read and saw correspondence and I spoke with the act the applicant's representative briefly. Commissioner Armstrong, I met with the applicant's representative and I've read and received emails. Commissioner Johnson, same disclosures. Heather, do we have any public comment on this item? We did receive correspondence for this item. I did not get any voicemails and I don't have any requests to speak forms. Anyone in the audience or on Zoom wishing to make public comment? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission for questions of the applicant or staff. Commissioner Villan Noeva. Thank you. So, um, I have questions for the applicants. Hi, good evening. Um, I'm trying to understand um and I I'm trying to understand the access. So, currently there's no access from 80, but there the plan is that there will be access from 80. Correct. Um, for the record, Andy Derling with Wood Rogers. Um, so, um, Rob Drive, you can you can sort of see, uh, in this exhibit, basically deadends into the adjacent progress parcel, which is that FJ management parcel. Um, there is an agreement between the two parties that access will be provided. So, um, what two parties? What two parties? Um, the TCA property owners and the Flying J property owners. on this parcel here. Okay. For for the for the not the NDOT access but for the actual roadway network that would be um provided and and Flying J actually signed an owner's affidavit as part of this application. Um so that would be an extension of Rob Drive to the south. Um basically all the way this is just kind of shown schematically but ultimately it will come to the south probably to a roundabout and then swing around um to provide that access to these three projects. Which part is the ND dot part? N dot would have control of access. Currently their control of access ends right at the kind of at the property line which is kind of typical. Then they have um access management standards that extend past that into um onto the the city of this will be a public street um city of Reno public street um like you would see in in most subdivisions. Um and so that their NDOT's control of access extends into the site. Uh and and they can control kind of where um you know driveways and things like that would be to the adjacent parcels. But um we would have to go through it's the condition 13 um that would require us to go through that encroachment permit and right of access with NDOT. What if endot denies which we have seen in the past with inverti and dot has come back and denied despite a condition. Sure. So Laurenson's here but we would have to go through that process. We we can't actually go through that process. It's kind of a chicken or egg, right? We can't go through that process until we have an actual project. So, we have to seek these approvals first, then go to NDOT. And it would happen prior to approval of any building permit or in this case, it would be the building permit for the multif family or for the next project, the town homes, it would be prior to the approval of the final map. And what's the topography right there where that roadway access would be? It's relatively flat. Um there's a there's kind of a little burm that would have to be graded out, but it's it's relatively flat. It's a This is a Let me see if I can get a bigger picture of the kind of overall um this is a large plateau that sits um more or less at at kind of that grade of uh of Rob Drive. There would have to be some grading obviously to to make drainage and things like that work, but um it's generally at that that Rob drive grade. Okay. I have other questions, but I'll let others speak. I think Why don't you just go ahead and continue with your questions? I know. Commissioner Gower, I saw you raise your hand, so I'll go to you next, but I'll let you continue. Commissioner Voeva. Okay. Um, so this is a different topic. So, um, have you had communication with any of the neighbors in the area? The neighbors to the east? Um, just in general, the little community right there because it is kind of a little community in and of itself. It's pretty set off from the highway and the it is and there's there's quite a bit of topographic um change. So, you know, this the blue line is the property line that comes along the the bottom here. This is a slope that comes down to this uh property, the the subdivision below. Um, so they they sit quite a ways, you know, the engineers are here, but you know, you know, 20 30 40 50 feet below us or more. Um, and so there's there's quite a bit of grade separation. So, it is, as Brooke said, it's sort of an interesting area topographically and geographically because it sort of is isolated, right? this little little plateau that really is oriented towards Interstate 80. Everything to the south is is down the hill below us. And so how is that gonna impact the neighbors with lights and I mean especially since it since there is that height difference? I mean sure people below are used to the dark skies and then you're going to Yeah. So we would I mean city code requires that we have um you know dark skies lighting and things like that. So you would have down lighting. You know, some of this has been done by virtue of the the zoning. And I'm getting ahead of myself because, you know, the multif family that we're talking about right now for this case, right, is is is well separated um both topographically and and distance separation from any adjacent. So, this these are the adjacent lots. This is several hundred feet um both vertically and horizontally separated from it. But looking at the zoning, this is all zoned general commercial. Um so, it could have even more intense uses uh on this uh shopping centers, things like that. And then by virtue of the zoning, the far west side over here was zoned SF3. So three three units per acre, which is relatively low single family uh residential density, which is more in line with the adjacent properties to to the kind of west uh of of the overall land holding here. Okay. Thank you, Sure. Thank you, Commissioner. Uh Commissioner Gower, thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Andy, since you're up there, I have a question for you. Looking at finding under conditional use permit 6A that talks about um nuisance from noise, dust, vibration, things like that. Um, can you talk to me a little bit about how this project would mitigate or if there is a concern in the first place, particularly regarding um potential nuisance of new for new residents of this community relative to noise and potentially vibration from Interstate 80. Sure. So, um, yeah. So I think essentially if I can maybe paraphrase you're you're interested in noise of the future residents of this multif family project from traffic on Interstate 80 if I can paraphrase. Is that fair? Correct. Yeah. So um we do have some you know some separation. There is the collector roadway. Um most of the units we tried to you know kind of locate south of of that roadway. Um you do have the rec center there. Um additionally there is this is a a kind of burm if you will. um that is between Interstate 80 and um uh and the collector roadway. So there is some some some kind of grade separation. Um so we looked at it internally. We didn't feel like because because the topography was there, it really didn't make sense to have any type of sound walls or things like that. Um so there's there's some natural buffers that are sort of built in. They're in the endot rideway, so we feel pretty confident they're not going to get um touched. Um they're not part of our grading. So, um, that is that that's our our sort of rationale for why this is appropriate. Thank you. And if I could, Commissioner Johnson, follow up with staff on that. And then I have a another question for Brooke. Hi, Brooke. Happy New Year. Happy New Year to you, Coward. Um, follow up on that that question. just asking if staff looked at u this particular issue and consideration relative to the finding and just want to confirm that you agree with Andy's characterization of the topography and u I guess lack of of concern related to noise uh you know vibration potentially light illumination on the future residents of the project. Yes, we did. Uh we we did have a initial concerns looked at that. We did we had discussions with the applicant on that and kind of went through the topography uh that separation the grade. Additionally, uh you know that is end rideway uh that being there. Um we have the roadway and it being set back. We'll have uh you know the landscape architectural uh taking out some of that sound as it moves through. Additionally, I think when if we do see expansion of I80 into that N DOT, N DOT would look at that time of, you know, if sound walls or other things were appropriate at this time. But as we looked at at this point, we felt um that it was um it it was adequate with distance and great separations to provide that separation with light, glare, uh noise, and those other things that we would anticipate with I80. Okay. Thank you for that clarification, Brooke. um followup. Well, not a followup, separate question. I'm looking at condition 12 and it has three seem seems like fairly distinct parts to it related to access and I was hoping Brooke if you could just kind of walk me through those three parts and the logic for that condition. Yeah. So, as we look at that and we we kind of put them in condition because they're all I mean they're bundled. they are separate conditions but bundled in in a way that we want to make sure we're we're meeting all three of them as as we go through uh or or that we know they're they're connected as it goes through. So that first one as you look at that um it just it's that control of access off Rob Drive. So we do have a you know an owner affidavit came in from the Flying J. Uh there's there's some access agreements already in place. We know that those those agreements are happening between uh at least three of the parties out there on how that would go through. Um they we've had initial staff has sat down with NDOT had initial conversations with them. The federal highway um probably as this improvement happens this will have to to be expanded into to any federal highway improvements or anything else was happen. So that just really um secures with the the for the city that we're making sure that all those agencies are addressed and going through. And as the applicants representative noted, you know, this is sort of the first process. They need to get approval so they can move forward and start to work with those agencies to find the the proper ways. The next is just making sure we have a reciprocal access easement across those properties because they do they don't own the final property and we want to make sure until we get a dedicated roadway that becomes city property or or within a public ownership, we we need to make sure that th those residents have proper access and we don't have that shut off. Uh the final um is that that each time everything's coming in that we're just going to be seeing traffic reports. So we're keeping a consistent sort of understanding update of where we are, where our triggers are and and what should be applied as as those come in. Uh because we may see development coming in on the other side of this development right prior to these being built. So we really want to make sure that we're we're constantly keeping an update where the traffic are and what improvements are going to need to happen. So, and appreciate that clarification. And to that last point, so as as development evolves in this area that the the intent of that third part of the conditions that you're taking into account or the traffic engineer who's providing you the information is taking into account the um additional traffic from growth within the region. So the conditions or considerations for improvement could change going into the future. That's that's correct. We could see, you know, improvements happening on the other side that could impact the I80 interchange. Additionally, we anticipate seeing future development on in this basically general development area through other other developers and um you know making sure that th those are taken into consideration. Now, the traffic port we have now should be noted they did uh put out some general ideas of what they felt the development potential were and use from that. But this way we'll really know exactly at any point what what impacts we're having and if any additional mitigation or anything is needed. Okay. Thanks. Appreciate that. Thank you commissioner. Additional questions. Commissioner Villainova. Thank you. A question for uh staff please. This is my question is regarding also that uh development of the highway where does the I mean who pays for that for if NDOT were to approve that type of development um the connection to the 80 where does that what what we're anticipating is that would be a cost sharing between the developers um them looking at the agreement their overall impacts and and a cost sharing to uh make sure those improvements are done. Okay. So that has that was in a conversation with N DOT and ND dot was in that same same light that that would happen and then whatever N do process has of their their proportion of that and what would happen. Okay, additional questions. Brook, I have a question. Yes. So I understand um for this project and I'll I guess be specific to the the one that's before us. So, the secondary access and it was it was clear and I think you know, Commissioner Gower kind of touched on it a little bit, but the uh as well as the presentation, the backbone roadway that basically provides access from Rob Drive all the way to the culde-sac as well as the secondary emergency access only off of Leroy. Um I understand that for this project. Um and and this is maybe germanine to a project that came before us several months ago and it touches on what's in between. And if I understand this correctly, the the areas to the east of this, the properties that are being discussed here um will be accessed from Rob Drive, but they will also require a secondary access from a fire standpoint. Correct. Is there any thought that what's being provided off of Leroy would satisfy that requirement or is it the fact that it's where it is there would need to be a second? My concern is from a traffic standpoint, I do not want, you know, there's enough issue with this potentially being an access, you know, and and it makes sense only for emergency, but if it becomes the emergency access for this entire area, that could be problematic. So is um from staff standpoint, is there any way that that traffic or engineering would consider that an acceptable secondary access? Yeah. So I had extensive meetings with our fire marshal on that because that was one of our concerns too is we saw the overall area develop out that this was not going to be we were had concerns. what we would anticipate seeing and and through the fire marshal and he was generally in agreement and as we move forward we'll have more information but really using if you extended Rob Drive we're going to need one at least one emergency access on one side and one on the other so they felt very comfortable if we could get two off that entire plateau that that would be sufficient. So, as it you know, as as as was mentioned, each of these has to stand individually. So, each will the 200 will have their secondary access required. They'll if if the other two aren't built, they'll have to build all the way down and and and so forth, right? So, anyone that comes in builds going to have to build out the entire backbone and infrastructure at that point. Okay. And that was and and I again, I understand it for this project. I'm just trying to, you know, we've had this discussion about the overall development and that that staff had the exact same concern and we we are working on that and have have worked with our fire marshall to to make sure and and the other applicant is aware that that will be required. Okay. And and and I appreciate that. And then I guess the the other question unrelated to that, but maybe going back to Commissioner Villanoeva and Commissioner Gower talking about some of the issues with the adjacent parcels. So the the parcel directly to the east of this uh unit that we're looking at now is also zoned general commercial. So even though we're putting in a residential use, there's not any kind of requirement there there wouldn't be a requirement for the development on the adjacent parcel for additional setbacks because they're both zoned general commercial. Yep. So was there any uh conversation about um I I see the landscape plan you know there's some setbacks there there's some things but there's no conditions with respect to uh distance or separation from you know not the the north side from the freeway but the the east side for the unknown general commercial the units units now um and and those two the the town homes we have a you know a denser town home product approximately 200 units we're seeing approximately 200 multifamily sort of within that I think we're really what we're seeing they're very compatible uses and and sort of their overall density. I think one of the biggest things we're seeing was mentioned is is really that parking that multif family and that's where we start to see really a large a lot of those impacts not screening and buffering for noise or something between them but really the impacts that you see on the parking. We're well overparked within our multif family from what's required and that's that gave staff a lot more comfort to make sure that they were not impacting with parking or those other those neighborhoods. Um, additionally, I think there is there is kind of a beauty of tying those product types together and not creating the separation. I think where we I'm gonna back you. I'm not talking about the two that we're talking about. I'm talking about the third east. Yes. No, to the to the east of us. Oh, east of us is not part of this. So, is there a requirement for any type of or was there a discussion about any kind of separation or screening requirement? And and I guess I'm asking that because they're both Joan Yeah. zone general commercial. So, there wouldn't be a requirement on the next parcel to do anything for that. I I apologize. I didn't understand quite understand the question. Now, I do. Um, there isn't at this time, right? It is vacant land. We have the roadway going through. We're going to anticipate seeing future development coming in. We'd anticipate those cuts and fills are going to have to come in on that property, too, just because of the general slope. So, will be another discretionary review at that time. Once we know what is actually being proposed, then I think it's a much better time to really propose the correct screening and buffering that would be required between those uses if felt if it was necessary. Okay. But but the way we're looking at it now, that requirement would fall on the future applicant rather than correct. We'd anticipate more of a commercial use and that that would kind of fall on them to make sure that they are respecting the existing properties or that existing between them. And if I could Andy just follow up with you on that because obviously you know there's been some broader discussions up there. Is there any concern from you know this project? I think I I appreciated the answer about concern about to the north but with the relatively unknown at least from our standpoint of what could happen east of this. Are you comfortable that the plan that you have in place would satisfy any future separations or requirements between those two parcels? Sure. Um Andy Durling for the record. Um, no, we there wasn't a concern. There's there we actually have a little bit bigger setback on our side. Um, it's anticipated there's probably going to be some slope area on the other side. It could be additional multif family to the east of us, which would be very complimentary, obviously like kind uses even, you know, when you look around town, there's tons of examples of multif family next to shopping centers. That's not, you know, inappropriate by any means. Um, so we're kind of comfortable with the mix of uses that are out there that it would be appropriate. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Uh, commissioners, additional questions, any discussion? Commissioner Villain Noea. Thank you. Um, so some of my concerns before I uh take a vote some of my concerns. Um, first I'll point out I I understand this is general commercial and this is uh seeking multif family and given that this is general commercial um there could be some you know pretty much anything some more invasive uses but there's a lot of other things it can be that would be less um taxing on that infrastructure that's currently there because my concern is that endot doesn't approve you guys come back you say you know we really have to use I I believe it's Leroy Street um as access and we have seen that happen in the past and ask for the uh removal of the condition. So I'm concerned that you know that's where we're going to be. I understand that this is a chicken and the egg situation. Um but I you know I'm looking at the findings and I you know infrastructure is one of the findings. Generally I'm very pro multi-development um or multif family. I just don't think that this is an appropriate place for it given the infrastructure um and that we don't know what endot's going to do. um in Leroy. I was just there this evening before I I came here and it's very small street. It goes right under the highway. Mayan goes right under the highway onto Leroy. I just don't think it's safe. And additionally, um there's a lot of things here that I don't I can't make the findings for. Uh the lack of public transit um is also a concern. And um what else? the uh the uh grading um slope failure. Um so that's kind of where I am. That's what I'm thinking right now. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Any additional comments? Commissioner Delto. So I I feel like we oftentimes see very similar projects where there needs to be either some there needs to be some interaction with NDOT or some sort of infrastructure and constantly go through this process where unless we build something or have plans to build and start the process whereby they can start communicating with NDOT with something feasible, we never end up having uh the roads improved or have the infrastructure improved. So I think these conditions are actually fairly extensive and it creates a framework for them to interact successfully with NDOT and in the event that they're unable to uh have those conditions become effective then the project won't happen. But I'm satisfied with the conditions as they're written especially as it relates to the uh to the roads and the infrastructure. Um and beyond that I think this is the type of project that makes sense in the area. It's uh consistent with our master plan and I think this is a you know an all around good project and something that I I'll be able to support. Thank you, Commissioner. Any additional comments? Commissioner G. Commissioner Gower. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. I'll just chime in as well and say I appreciate um Commissioner Billa's comments about the infrastructure um particularly share your concern about the the transit availability. I think that's a programmatic issue that we have as a region is um access to multimmoal transportation options. Um and I'd love to see transit access the site. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen. Um I my concerns were related to access uh and traffic. We saw those comments uh in public comment or concerns in public comments. Um you know I do feel actually that there is infrastructure to support this this type of development at this site. There is an on-ramp there. Um it seems like a logical extension of Rob Drive to provide that access. I was concerned also about um encroachment upon that community to the the southwest there, but I think it's conditioned well with just emergency access on onto Leroy. That's going to be very infrequent uh vehicle traffic and it doubles as a a really solid pedestrian access for people who are interested in coming down from this uh development down towards the river. Um, I also appreciated that the applicant is not only looking at their project and the phases of their project um and staff as well, but coordinating with the other land owners and and developers in this area, taking a comprehensive look at it. I think that's really important. It's something that has been missing from uh from other projects and proposals. having that comprehensive look at traffic for example for this project and others in the area. It's just it's so informative for knowing what those cumulative impacts of development in this area are looking like. And just lastly, I'll note that um I think this is an infill project and it meets a fundamental master plan finding for infill development in our region. So I'm wholeheartedly in support of that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Additional comments. I'll throw throw mine out there. And again, I I appreciate where you're coming from, Commissioner Villoeva, but I think kind of where I was going with my line of questioning is that, you know, this is, you know, it is a site that needs to be accessed from Rob Drive. I think the Rob Drive overpass um is sized appropriately for additional traffic. I think it's always kind of looked like a road to nowhere. You kind of go across and you have to turn right and take a loop to get anywhere and there's that sort of area over there. And and you know I I you know hearing that that could have been a a Flying J truck stop. I think that just kind of sends some shivers down the spine in terms of some of the concerns that you've raised. And I think um from a traffic standpoint, the level of development that's required on here, I think would be met uh by what's happening at that uh at that interchange. And and as Commissioner Gower pointed out, there was some um really helpful visuals and discussion about how this can um accommodate additional growth in that area. Um I understand your concerns about the you know, proximity, but really there's a you know, there's a you know, horizontal proximity, but there's also sort of a vertical separation that makes a lot of that in my mind go away. I mean, this is uh as was said several times tonight, kind of an island uh sitting up there on on almost a uh a bluff above what's happening at the river below. So, um I I I think it's a you know challenge from a a public transit standpoint, but it is a a good spot for uh higher intensity development meeting what's going uh what the zoning is and and what the intent is of the master plan. So, um if there's no further discussion, I'll look for a motion. Commissioner, I'll make a motion. Oh, you can do that because you're not actually acting chair tonight. Perfect. uh in the sorry I'm just holding the motion in the matter of case number LDC23-00000015 based on compliance the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings thank you Mr. Velto. I have a motion. Looking for a second. Commissioner Armstrong, I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Um, Heather, can we get a roll call vote on this, please? Mark Johnson, yes. Peter Gower, yes. Arthur Munos, yes. Sylvia Villa, no. And I do want to add that my position is mainly because that end dot connection has not been approved. I understand again this is a chicken egg situation. My position may be different or probably would be different if we knew that that was going to be approved for sure. Um because my concern again is that they're going to come back as to remove the condition and then use Leroy as a major thoroughare well a major street to access that. Um if something changes down the road my my position would probably change but I'm a no. Thank you. Alex Felto, yes. Paris Armstrong, yes. 5 to one. Thank you. Motion passes. And with that, we will move on to the next item. Again, as I mentioned at the beginning, um item 4.4, uh LDC16, the TCA Leroy Street has been uh postponed. Uh so we will move on to item 4.5 uh case number LDC23-000017 TCA town homes. Andy, welcome back. Thanks. Good to be back. Uh for the record, Andy Derling with Wood Rogers uh representing the applicant um for the TCA properties town home project. Um, not to be captain redundant, um, I do have to go through some of this just for the record, but would, you know, respectfully request for the secretary to, um, acknowledge that in the record, um, the past presentation and discussion relative to the general development characteristics of the area are applicable to this as well. Um, so again, this is on the south side of Interstate 80 at Rob Drive. um two parcels, 35 acres about total. Um mixed um master plan of suburban mixed use and single family, mixed zoning of general commercial and single family. Um three units per acre. It's vacant land with historical um grading associated with a previous SUP. Um the project that we're talking about right now is a town home project which is in uh the center portion of the screen here on this exhibit in the yellow. Again, all of the infrastructure associated with the roadway, the extension of Rob Drive, the new collector roadway to the terminus um at a local street and culde-sac with the emergency access would all be constructed as as part of um any initial phase because one, the secondary access has to go out to the west. Also, that's our sewer connection. So, all of that kind of has to be built as one u as one. Um the single family attached or the town home project uh is a tenative map for 202 units. Uh conditional use permit for development of more than 100 units. Again, so similar to the previous request, uh anytime you go over 100 units in the GC zoning, uh it requires a conditional use permit as well as cuts. Um 14 acre site, um 202 units yields about 14 dwelling units per acre. Um 440 parking spaces are provided, 404 required. Uh the majority of those spaces are provided in two-car garages that are part of each uh of these units. So these would more than likely be for sale units. Each unit has a twocar garage. There's sort of two town home product types here um in the kind of northern northeastern portion here. This is an alley load project uh project. So you would enter your garage from an alley side. Your front door is on the opposite side of the house. Uh the front door is either open to kind of a you know a treeine street or to a po in the center of some of these areas. Um the other product type is more of a traditional front-loaded um two-car garage and front door both um to uh entering to the street um with kind of a little patio space behind it. The town home architecture. This is the the alley load project uh or product uh three and fourbedroom units twotory and the front load um more traditional kind of town home uh again twotory um three and fourbedroom units. We talked on the last one about uh proximity to existing parks that meet the the city of Reno's reimagine uh Reno standards as well as proximity to some some really great trail heads and and the Truckucky River Trail um with access pedestrian only access that would go down to to Leroy Street and ultimately can can kind of lead folks down to that Rockstar or Mayberry Park trail heads that are down on the on the kind of south side of street there. Um, also we have on-site trails uh and amenities that would be programmed as part of this and conditioned uh as part of the conditions of approval for the approval of this project. Again, the overall traffic considerations um maybe just to clarify understanding you know the the dialogue on the previous case um the right of access has already been obtained. Um so that has been purchased that's a that's an actual right that is purchased from NDOT. um Flying J and TCA are party to that and have access to Interstate 80. Um the only question is mitigating the traffic impacts and that comes with these projects. Uh and you know to to address um Commissioner Villaina Villoeva's comments on the previous case. Um the access is granted. There is access to the site for the extension of Rob Drive. really what we're talking about is is what it looks like and and kind of you know um how it needs to mitigate the the traffic impacts which is tied to a project which is you you know based on unit counts and things like that. So there is you know I mentioned chicken or egg there is there is some finite um sort of um pieces to this that are known at this time. Um so sorry if I didn't articulate that that well on the previous one. Um so this has been comprehensively planned from a traffic perspective and infrastructure perspective. Um that extension of Rob Drive uh again would come to roundabout that would provide access to the east and west. Again mentioning the phasing of these improvements. TCA's portion which they will build and they will fund uh is is relatively minimal to be honest u and provides the extension of Rob Drive. The roadway infrastructure would still be a stop condition. there would be some minor um on-ramp um modifications that would need to happen again just to address this new development um for this this you know arterial roadway that really stubs into the property here and then looking forward in future phases for um the additional development that could occur on the south side to build in that additional capacity um uh additional turn lanes and modifications to the on and off ramps both on the north and south side ultimately resulting in a pair of signals that would need to be installed again at the developers expense um which they are working on a cost share for the private parties that that would benefit from that on the south side here. So with that we are um in agreement with staff's recommendations and would be happy to um answer any questions. Thank you Andy. Once again, uh, Commission Brooke Oswald, associate planner. I'd like to also reiterate many of the the discussions, comments that we had pri in the prior. We'll we'll apply to this and I'll try I'll try to touch on those as we move forward. Uh, once again, we're looking at or we're looking at approximately 14 acre site on this one's a little bit different. These will be a forale product, the single family attached product that does require a tenative map. So, those can be individually parcelled and sold. Additionally, we have conditional use permit for um over that 200 single family attached. Sorry, not detached should be attached. And then we have over those 100 units and then the cuts and fills. Uh we did look at that site design and building design related to this the grading and once again the public services and infrastructure. I mean a little bit closer on the site as you can see you know another unique thing the isolation of this site also you can see that it is highly disturbed site and so there are some uh both environmental advantages and other advantages uh to going in and and and seeking development on this site. Uh just for reference, Leroy Street and the Rob Drive interchange. Uh would like to confirm that that access has been um secured uh by the Flying J property for well over uh 15 years at this point and was has been contemplated um in our conversations with development. NDOT has always contemplated that development would happen uh at this location in the future. uh still within that general commercial uh zoning. Uh very similar uh reimagine renos that concurrency of those management systems coming in neighborhood connections, open space grading, transition to that unincorporated count open space and then those connections. Additionally, I think uh there are um value in in uh commissioner Gower's comment that this would be looked at uh as infill in a way. We usually look at that infill within this McCarron loop. This is just outside of that uh coming to that next exit outside of McCarron. The larger reimag plan is that suburban mixed use. Once again, we looked at this in a whole in entirety. We're trying to to to basically get an understanding of this whole plateau area. It is very unique development area. It's very isolated in many ways, but has a lot of opportunities for for development. Um we we have the associated case. Um, we'd anticipate uh you'll see that coming forward in the future. That'll be a zoning map amendment and a master plan amendment. Something unique about that, I'll just add now outside of this case, we we'd look for a specific plan district on that. So, it's going to be a little unique. Um, and and very specific because this area has some of those unique constraints. Once again, Leroy Street, our access secured off of Rob. Um these these will all stand independently. Uh we're seeing the the town home projects, the yellow and the orange in the middle at this time. We just discussed the multifamily. Uh we do anticipate the 16 uh single family homes uh down towards the other side. We anticipate uh that we will be hearing that at the February 1st just so the public is very aware that will be renoticed and reposted so that everyone will be aware on that. Um once again that access um is emergency only on to Leroy uh and will will be gated um per per our conditions. Um we additionally um will will see pedestrian access going up through there and connecting to the uh pedestrian walkway system and then also the trail system oversight. Uh a couple different product types. Uh we're seeing a little bit more of this as this is coming through these tighter developments. Um, this is this one has some uh nice feature and uniqueness, the open space and and views out the back, but also we're seeing those POS, which is a little different where it's really putting that front yard on the front side and uh creating those central units with kind of what would be considered a backloaded garage. Uh once again, that backbone uh infrastructure uh connecting to the multif family and then down to the project that we'll see in a couple weeks. staff could make all the findings and does recommend approval of the project. I'll leave you with Thank you, Brooke. Yep. Once again, back to the commission for disclosures. Uh, Commissioner Gower one more time. Thank you. I uh received and read correspondent spoke with the applicant's representative and am familiar with the site. Commissioner Belto, same disclosure. Commissioner Villaina, I read emails and I visited the surrounding area. Commissioner Monos, uh, familiar with the area, briefly spoke with the applicants representative and read correspondence. Commissioner Armstrong, I spoke with the applicant's representative and I read and received emails. Commissioner Johnson, same disclosures. Heather, do we have any public comment on this item? We did receive correspondence for this item. I did not get any voicemails and I don't have any requests to speak forms. Anyone in the audience wishing to make public comment, you'd like to make public comment, uh, you can come up. You can fill out a form with Heather after you're done and just state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Hi, my name is John Fus and I'm a resident of one of the communities to the south of the proposed development and I'm going to have to side with Commissioner Vill Noea. What you've done is approved the first phase of the development guaranteeing that or assuming that the Leroy Street will become emergency access. Leroy is a small street. It's has no lights, no sidewalks. We just had a power outage that lasted 30 hours last weekend. Also, it empties out onto Mesa Park, another very small street, which empties off into Fourth Street, and that road is already too busy. Um, right now the houses that are I know we haven't this the subject wasn't to talk about Leroy, but we can't do the other projects without talking about Leroy. Um, the houses on Leroy, they're talking about the new ones being zoned for three houses per acre. The problem is none of the houses existing on Leroy either on the Mesa Park side or on the uh east or the west side are three houses per acre. I think they're an acre and a house per acre and a half. So the houses that are being proposed to be on Leroy, they shouldn't be that many that much density. That would increase the volume anyway. Also, there's no foot traffic coming from north now and there would be. And where's it going to go? If it comes down Leroy, there really is nowhere to go. You're not walking to the river from there. You're not walking down that windy dangerous actually Mesa Park road. Um where a car just spun off and went off to the side of the road in the snow of the day. Um again, Leroy small 25 mph or that Leroy but Mesa Park windy. So there's nowhere really to go for someone who wants to come up down um unless it's just to walk along Leroy or to go east and walk through the residential neighborhoods out which are currently very quiet. Um also it's going to be emergency access road only or supposed to be. There already is an emergency access road and that one is on the east end of Leroy. The problem with emergency access roads is nobody reading a map in their car knows emergency access. They're all taking that road thinking it goes through and it doesn't. So, we already have people coming up and trying to get through on the roy now through the one gated access. Now, we'll have two. Um, and I don't know what the impact will be from people walking down from I mean, you can get all the way over to the shopping centers at Rob Drive, not and down. I'm not sure what that impact will all be. Also, they talked about no need for a sound wall. I can say from living there, especially the further you go east, you get quite a bit of road noise. So, I'm not sure how people on top of the hill close to the road won't have road noise. What else we got here? Those are the main things. Anyway, I can't see you proceeding with a project dependent on having an access road where there shouldn't be an access road or probably wouldn't be advised to be an access road. There probably needs to be another emergency route posted somewhere else and I'm not sure how you do that, but um I'm going to side with with commissioner in the way of a thank you. Additional request to speak. Seeing none, we will close public comment and bring it back for discussion on this item. Commissioners, questions. Commissioner Munoz, thank you. Um, I think this is going to be for the developer first and then we'll go to Brooke. Um, I have some concerns with the way the layout is set for the property line here and the property that's going to be to the furthest north off of Leroy. Um, do you know what the distance is between the proposed building there and the existing building just to the south? So on the north this side? No, down the bottom corner right there. Yeah. So right there, that very last building there and then that property right below it. I know it does sit below it. What is the distance from those buildings? So, we we actually uh for the record Andy Dling with Wood Rogers. If I can get the overhead, keep you on your toes here. We don't get too many overhead requests anymore. Um we prepared a cross-section. This was this is actually something that came up from staff. Um there is quite a bit of vertical separation there. And so, um we can zoom out just a bit. Well, that that actually shows it um quite well actually. So, this is the existing home there, which is um this home that you were the existing home to the south. Uh it sits quite a bit below um where's my pen here? Sits quite a bit below uh the the property line. So, the property line is indicated here. So it sits below it's if you look at that existing there's a there's a large retaining wall behind this house and so he's got quite a bit of you know his house is kind of dug into the hill. So that's kind of reflective here. If you look at the dashed line that's the existing ground. Okay. And it climbs very quickly. So this this new town home building which is this one here uh is being cut in and so there will be this little ridge here. And so the line of sight, you can almost, you know, kind of follow the existing grade here. And so the line of sight is really cut off at the at the at the top of the first story. So really, you only see the the second story of the house. Again, these are town homes, right? So they're they're two-story town homes. They are of a residential scale that's equivalent to kind of single family homes with twotory. Um so because of that physical um separation, the vertical separation, staff felt it was appropriate. we felt is appropriate and um that was the justification for it. Okay, I'm I'm satisfied with that. And then the second question I had is what is going to be the grade for the emergency access road from from Leroy down. Um I might have to refer to if you want actual grades um I'll I'll have the engineer come up and talk about it. But um generally speaking, I mean there are requirements um that the that Rita fire has in in um they've adopted international fire code. So it is a codified requirement. It has maximum grades that are on there. Um so there would be we we are meeting that um with that. Okay. So you're you're confident and it's going forward that this will be at grade. It meets code. Perfect. Okay. Correct. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. There's additional questions. Commissioner Venueva, hi. I have um question for the applicant. So you when you spoke just now in this on this application, you said it has been approved. I I'm trying to figure out the endot situation. Sure. So I I I did a poor job of articulating that I think the first time and maybe added more confusion. Um so sorry for the record, Andy Drilling. Um, so there there's a multi-stage process in order to gain access to a a freeway like this. As was mentioned, I think uh Commissioner Johnson on the previous case, right? Rob Drive is an arterial roadway that has been stubbed into the adjacent property, right? It's it's really looks like it is intended to be extended in the future. It goes in a loop. Yeah, I was just there. It goes in a loop and then it cuts off into Well, it looks like it goes into the mountain, but then it goes into a loop. It just stops right there. Um, so what endot in order to garner access to the interstate, you have to purchase that. It's it's kind of like purchasing right ofway. Um, but it's it's right of access. You're purchasing right of access that's already occurred. Flying J and TCA have uh partnered and purchased that access, spent a considerable amount of money to gain access to the freeway. So access is granted. Okay. The only thing now is the fundamentals of what type of intensity of development, what type of intensity of roadway is necessary to connect to that right of access to connect to the NDOT uh interchange there. So that's where we need these projects in order to come up with and quantify the traffic impacts that would then justify or be the basis of design for those roadway and traffic and intersection improvements. So, that's where it's sort of a two-step process. Access is already granted. Now, we're really just working with NDOT on um the appropriate traffic mitigations that are necessary due to the development that's coming in. And who who develops that that access way? Is that the developer or does endot come in after paid by the developer and create that access way? No, it would be it's permitted through NDOT. So they are the permitting authority and it is paid for by the developer, built by the developer with NDOT essentially looking over their shoulder the whole time to make sure it's done to their standards. They're very particular. Um it's a it's a lengthy process to go through that approval with uh with NDOT and and so it is a NDOT's not funding it. NDOT's not building it. It's built and funded by the the developers approved by NDOT. Okay. And so for this request, this is a 16 lot single family residential detached subdivision. This is Sorry, that item was pulled. Oh, sorry. So, this is a 202 lot town homes. Sorry, I forgot to switch. This is what happens when you use hard copies. Analog. Uh, excuse me. Okay. So, this is 202 lot single family residential, right? Single family attached. So, town homes attached. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Additional questions, Mr. Gower. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. I just want to ask staff to respond to the public comment and the commentary about access to Leroy Street and if there is ever a scenario where we would have traffic just normal access traffic going through that roadway that's being proposed. Yes, thank you for the question and I'd like to that it was a concern of ours and looking that we actually looked at one time uh and talked with the applicant of what that would look like to open that and saw you know the impacts not only up on Rob Drive increased tremendously but those impacts to that existing neighborhood. So, it was a concern through this whole process. Um, the applicant came forward initially always with with the gated access uh knowing that they wanted to really be um cognizant of that neighborhood. That will be gated. Uh there is a condition related to that. So, we know it's going to be gated. It has to be gated per uh the discretion of our fire department and the type of gate and lock and what they want on that. Um so, that is secured within that condition. It's one of the conditions of approval. Um, so what we there would be no through traffic going through there. What we would see, we'd anticipate, you know, a fire access. Uh, so that they would be able to to go through that gate and service up through that way if there was another issue. Additionally, uh, to move traffic or evacu evacuation out in in that time as as deemed necessary by the fire department. So other other than those sort of situations, there would be no no vehicular traffic. As was mentioned, we do have another gate uh down just uh to the the south of this down the roadway there that is gated, locked and and and sort of isolates this uh that unique larger lot properties uh some of within the county. It really is isolated from traffic and Leroy really just serves uh those homes that are along there. Thanks, Brooke, for that clarification. Just to confirm that's that's in in perpetuity if that's yeah that that that's in perpetuity that that would have to be maintained. I mean they would have to come back you know to change the condition or anything else they would have to come back. I do not see in any way that that staff would be supportive and and the infrastructure and and improvements to Leroy would have to happen to to accommodate any additional traffic right in those improvements. That's a county road. So there's other sort of court, you know, other tricks there too, right? The county's also involved in that. And so any approval would need to go through them. So we don't anticipate and that would be perpetuity that we would see that gated and and secured and all access being off of uh the the Rob Drive interchange. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Brooke. Um, Christianville, I apologize. I I'm just trying to really understand the project. So So at the beginning of this application, you said that this lot or this area had I mean it it's not it's it's not it's not undeveloped. It there was something that was done to it. The condition is shifted from the natural state. Can you tell me a little bit more about that? What's going on with Sure. Yeah, it was outlined in the staff report and I don't have the actual uh building permits, but we had previous approvals on this um that that that for development. Those were coming, you know, prior back in that 2007. Obviously, those weren't done. Um but what what we've seen is that preparation of the grading in that we saw um some grading uh permits being issued. Additionally, there's a a major drainage way that's already um so we did a uh the impact of a major drain disturbance of major drainage way was done at that time. Um, I think Andy outlined on the previous one, you can see where the outflow that's already been built and pushed out and that disturbance has already, you know, they've already done the construction for that. So, what we have now is kind of a site that started construction and has kind of bumped along and, you know, I think now we've seen ourselves in a market cycle and and uh, you know, is ready for development again. And so, we we have a a disturbed site. Disturbed. That was the word that was disturbed. Yeah. And that that's more by the grading. We've, you know, we've seen with that previous we've seen them start to do some of those grading efforts and stuff like that. So, one of the things advantages is is starting to to actually develop the site, right, that that has been disturbed and is not in a natural form anymore. Okay. Thank you. Any additional discussion? Any additional questions or discussion? for a motion. Commissioner Munoz. Thank you, Commissioner Munos. For the record, ready to make a motion. On the case number of LDC 23-000017 TCA Town Homes based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the tenative map conditional use permit subject to conditions listed in the staff report and I can make the findings. Thank you, Commissioner. I have a motion. Commissioner Ger, I'll second. I can make all the findings as well. I have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Heather, can we get another roll call vote, please? Alex Velto, yes. Mark Johnson, yes. Peter Gower, yes. Arthur Munos, yes. Sylvia Villan Noea, so I'm I'm still a no on this. I feel like I could be convinced. Um I just I just don't think I'm there yet. So I'm still going to be a no on this. But if this comes back before us, it my decision may change. I'm still a no, though. Thank you, Paris Armstrong. Yes. Motion passes 5 to one. Okay. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project and I guess we will see you in a couple of uh meetings for the last part of this. Thank you. Moving on to the agenda. That's the end of our public hearing. So, next is the Truckucky Meadows regional planning liaison report. I'm sharing so I don't have to do this one. I'm gonna make somebody else do this report. Oh, nobody's jumping up. Commissioner Gower is trying to remember what was on the agenda. I'm pulling up the website real quick. Commissioner Johnson, I already pulled it up just because I knew it was going to come back. We we did have a meeting um on November, excuse me, December 22nd, the day after the last regional planning commission meeting or local Reno planning meeting. Uh two items on the agenda. One was a conformance review of the regional water management plan. Uh and then the other item was um a Wo County master plan amendment for a small property actually right at uh Lemon Drive and Buck Drive. It's an interesting area that's half city of Reno and half Wo County. And so, uh, Wo County was re, uh, doing, uh, some suburban residential to commercial on a parcel that was basically commercial use. So, that was the one item on the agenda. So, gentlemen, please, I will. Hey, gentlemen, can you please take it outside so we can finish our meeting just so we can hear what's going on. Thank you very much. Okay. With that, uh, move on to, uh, item number six, staff announcements. Jason, good e good evening. Excuse me. Good evening, commissioners. Jason Garcia Libu, planning manager for the record. Short list for me today. Excuse me. That's good because you're losing your voice already. Getting over a cold. So, getting over a cold. Um, there's six items planned for our next January 18th PC meeting. Um, so those have been noticed. So we will have six items. So busy agenda and then we're also um we have a uh annexation training and discussion item that's on the agenda. So busy meeting next time next goound but looking forward to the discussion. Um just to follow up on tonight's items. Um I think tonight really uh is a good followup on our uh staff report training and the efforts that staff kind of go through when we're processing projects. uh we take a look at kind of what's going on in the area and um tonight's items you saw us kind of say hey look we see other applications in we see other things going on what can we do about it so a lot of those conditions and a lot of the uh staff work and networking with other agencies and organizations like ND do um helped kind of bring that project to where it was um so when that other project or other projects come forward you'll see that similar collaboration so If there's any kind of questions or comments on the staff end or any uh future items, please let me know. Thank you. Thank you, Jason. Um item number seven, commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. None. Uh item number eight, public comment. Um do we have any requests to speak forms? Okay. Commissioner Chair Commissioner Chair Commissioner Johnson. Um I I do have um just a request from staff. I noticed on some of these uh they don't have the addresses. They have the APN and sometimes I have to search the assessor's website, get the APN, and then or type in the APN then get the address so I can locate the site. If we can just have the addresses on the staff report so it's easier for me or or maybe I missed it, maybe it had it. But um I've noticed that a few times when I'm trying to locate these properties. Uh they don't have the address. We can try we can try where need be. Um sometimes we don't necessarily have an address or it might not be correct. Um for the noticing portion that we have to actually distance from an an intersection or something like that, but we can try where we can to include that or incorporate that into the staff report. Yeah, I understand. Not all of them because there's a lot of vacant land. Um, but there was a few on here that definitely did have addresses available that they they weren't listed, but All right. Thank you. Understood. Okay. Um, and then I last item on the agenda is adjournment. Make a motion. Got a motion. All those in favor? I I Good night. Happy New Year. Thanks everyone.