all right everybody thank you for coming to the regular meeting of the Reno City Planning Commission today's date is Wednesday February 7th 2024 we all start it off with the Pledge of Allegiance commissioner VTO will you lead the way please sir all right moving on item number two roll call Michelle please oh wait hang on just a second I'm not ready okay uh Harris Armstrong here Manny sah here Arthur Munos here Carrie rer here Alex fto here Sylvia vill NOA here JD draulic here we have a quorum great thank you moving to item number three public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment for those in the room if you are waiting to speak on a spe specific item we will have that opportunity to do so is anybody here wishing to speak in general public comment Mich can I can I do this may okay so members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the zoom link provided on the agenda specifically https col links. reno.gov planning 02-07 it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to 3 minutes per person and may per May pertain to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter not agendized for possible action on today's agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded 3 minutes if you are an attendee in the zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time please raise your hand lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disrupted behavior and you will be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues with that we did not receive any correspondents no request to speak forms and no voicemails thank you anybody in the chambers wish to speak on General Public comment at this time seeing none we will close public comment item number three move on to item number four approval of minutes item 4.1 the Reno City Planning Commission regular meeting of December 20th commissioner villan we have a motion to approve all right we have a motion commissioner Armstrong I'll second for a motion and a second all in favor I I commissioner rorer did I hear you yes okay I all right uh minutes approved moving on to item 4.2 Reno City Planning Commission regular meeting of January 3rd uh notably I was not um at this meeting so I will abstain commissioner berera motion to approve all right we have a motion commissioner fill and Away have a second a motion and a second all in favor I I Iain I was not at the meeting okay great go also I'll also abstain because I was not at the meeting okay minutes approved 5 to zero all right closing item number four moving to item number five public hearings any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard will need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary alternatively you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of this meeting we'll start it off with item 5.1 which is case number lc24 d29 Reno a looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicant good evening everybody this is this is good okay right on all right my name is Alex the lovely gentleman to my right is Phil today we're representing Reno a we'll be talking about existing business operations and addressing any concerns as well as wrapping this up with some Q&A are we controlling the slides or you do oh I got you got we controlling this or you can control the slides from the podium with the keyboard or the um Mouse it's up on the screen for you it is okay all right so first for those of you who don't know us or what we do Reno a and social provides ax throwing entertainment on our first level there are two levels for this business as well as a downstairs bar which features various games those games are pool air hockey darts that sort of thing the two bars within Maro acts currently operate until 1:00 a.m. on Thursday through Saturday and until 11:00 p.m. on all other days and on average year we serve about 75,000 customers and employ 25 employees we pride ourselves to be the best and most secure bar in downtown Reno thanks to our quality of our management team and our meticulously trained staff and in fact every single one of our security officers has worked for at least two years in a previous high volume bar we have passed 100% of police stings and random checks by the city and that includes immediate knowledge of current occupancy capacity clean fire exits and valid alcohol awareness cards currently we are known for being a pre-party bar what that means is that folks usually come to us as their first stop throughout the evening and then venture out into the night uh around 10 or 11 o'cl Our intention with this permanent request is to remain busy for only an extra couple of hours we are are not trying to compete with nightclubs in the neighborhood and in fact I want to underline that one we don't want to be a nightclub in any way we just want a space for our customers to dance and sing like karaoke while still maintaining our fun our fun and friendly culture the pictures on the right there showcase the downstairs bar which will have all of this impacted by because the DJ and karaoke is going down there so we're going to address some concerns that were presented to us but before I do that I just wanted to say St that we genuinely care about uh not only the people in downtown but the surrounding area we have staff and family that live work and play downtown so it's incredibly important to us that we hear your feedback and in fact the next few slides are going to be addressing that feedback uh and in fact this feedback that we received made us wonder if this was the opinion of the majority so we put out a poll to see if folks wanted to have us operate later in fact the overwhelming majority of the 220 members surveyed was in positive 84% wants us to operate later and have some live entertainment values so let's talk about those hours of operation the feedback that we received uh is that operating until 10:00 a.m. is way too long and I totally agree with that we don't want to operate until 10: a.m. so we're going to tailor that back to only operate a couple hours longer until 3:00 a.m. on only Friday and Saturday all other days of the week will be a closing at 11:00 noise level again we received feedback that their concern was about music being too loud the good news is that no one's going to hear that music for the past two years we've been operating the downstairs speakers at or above what they really should be but we've received no noise complaints and when we did our own independent sound study we found that the outside volume is at the same level as the street in fact I can't even hear the music if I put my head next to the door again all of this entertainment is going to the basement uh and then the type of music in our last NAB meeting M asked what type of music we'd be playing we're not going to change what we're doing already it's working we want to stick with that upbeat house wrap topit re kind of stuff we're not looking to have any aggressive type of music the next concern is drunk people and again noise level we already discussed our hours of operations and we between us we tried to understand why people might be outside downtown area just being noisy we came came up with four reasons they're going from one bar to another they're walking back to their apartment or they're deliberately being allowed without a purpose now I can tell you in the four years that I've been at Reno ax it's extremely rare for me to see people that are allow without a purpose and then lastly they're getting a ride or they're getting some food at Reno act we want to help with all four of these we want to operate later and thereby reduce traffic outside because those same people that would normally be out carousing are going to stay with oops I'm sorry my bad uh they're instead of being out and about downtown they're going to be staying with us until about 3:00 and I don't know how many of you stay out until 3:00 a.m. downtown but that's usually when most people go home anyway increased capacity now the feedback was given to us that the increased capacity to Reno act will be an issue well the good news we're not requesting a capacity increase uh nor are we expecting more people as a results again the goal of this permit is only to operate for an extra couple hours and provide some extra services to our customers per their feedback next concern is cameras and recording um we've heard those concerns we have an existing camera system in place that is infrared and Records activity for seven days at a time we can recall all of that information next concern is egress and fire safety uh for safety purposes it was asked for us to have an egress and fire safety protocol totally agree with that uh in fact we've written one up that will be reviewed by the appropriate stakeholders within the city that encompasses emergency exits paths evacuation plan and more age limits the feedback that we received is that live entertainment should be restricted to 21 and over I totally agree with that all live entertainment will be 21 plus only and in fact uh in current operations we don't allow anybody under 21 into the business after 10 p.m. and I would go further to say that my staff is extremely trained on how to catch uh fake IDs and unruly patrons as a result of that we have a plethora of fake IDs that we have taken off the streets security planning we totally agree and comply to provide a security plan that is subject to the satisfaction of zoning code enforcement and Reena police that plan addresses cameras operations management and that includes conf conflict mitigation protocol and several security staff measures moving on keeping with security we agree to have one security officer per every 50 patrons during the hours of live entertainment that's a big deal for us it is a a payroll hit but we are willing to bend and meet that need queuing plan again we agree to provide a queing plan that is in the satisfaction of uh City Planning and based on the four years of experience we know that we only hit capacity on Crawl nights uh we all know what those big bar crawls are it's the only time that we hit capacity we already have queing prot protol in place and we'll continue to do this sidewalk and curbs we agree that the sidewalk and curb should be maintained in a good and safe condition we will also monitor for trash and other nuisances caused by our patrons to ensure that the Abundant sidewalk remain safe and clean so in conclusion Reno accent social is in my humble opinion one of the best bars in downtown Reno we house one of the best security teams in downtown REO know and this fact is evidenced by A Perfect sting and City compliance record our customers routinely Express their gratitude to my team stating that they feel safe and that they're able to have a good time without fear of Confrontation or disly conduct and again in the four years that I've been doing this we've had exactly three fights three in four years operating for an additional two hours on weekend nights no changes to current business on the weekdays is a benefit to the surrounding area like we talked about earlier we firmly believe that we can keep a lot of these unruly patrons off the street for longer and like I said around 3:00 a.m. is when people typically go home anyway we pride ourselves uh on always protecting and improving our neighborhood we operate multiple businesses within downtown Reno and we want this area to be as clean and safe as possible we're trying to add entertainment to the downtown area and we've been doing entertainment for almost a decade downtown is close to our heart and we care for our neighbors in close proximity to us there are a large amount of bars that currently operate at what we are currently doing or later those bars are all there I'm not going to mention them out right now but what I'm trying to state is that we're trying to bring more entertainment to the downtown area and we firmly believe and are confident that we can do that safely do you have anything thank you thank you as well appre appreciate it now we'll take a yeah you guys take a seat we'll might ask you some questions later presentation from City staff hello Carter good evening Commissioners Carter Williams assistant planner for the record before you tonight is a conditional use use permit submitted by Reno a um an existing bar and indoor recreation facility located in downtown Reno the property is located on the northwest corner of North Sierra Street and West First Street um and the specific request is to um hold live entertainment events between 11:00 p.m. and 3 a.m. on specific days only within the basement the property is located within the mixed East downtown Riverwalk district and I think it's important to note that the scope of this request is on the live entertainment activity after 11: p.m. currently in the Riverwalk District bars are allowed by right um as well as 24 hours um for most uses the live entertainment is also allowed um up to 11:00 p.m. um and this business currently has um all the licensing required including Cabaret licenses to to operate live entertainment till 11: p.m. the property is located within the downtown mixed use master plan land use designation and the application generally um supports um policies in the master plan relating to the support of existing businesses um support of Tourism and entertainment in the downtown core the conditions proposed with this application or the um by staff uh support policies related to Public Safety and generally this is an activity generating use um along an urban Corridor specifically Virginia Street the hours of operation listed on the screen are the uh the limits that are being proposed by staff so Sunday through Wednesday um 10: a.m. to 11: p.m. are the existing allowed operations under the current code in this area for live entertainment um so the the request is specifically asking for an increase up to 3:00 a.m. for Thursday Friday and Saturday and I think they noted that they actually are only operating um Friday and Saturday to 3:00 a.m. to give some area context uh this is the intersection of West First Street and North Sierra Street um this area is generally characterized by some of the features of mixed use development that we really want to see um for for this area with activity generating uses bars restaurants retail establishments located on the ground floor and other uses like residential um office and U garage parking located above in in a vertical mixed fashion um on the screen also is the primary entrance for the the um existing Reno ax facility generally within mixed use areas where we can expect a um many different uses um in close proximity specifically in downtown so when uh staff is reviewing compatibility in areas like this we're really looking for conditions that are going to mitigate some of those complex um adjacency issues that we might find um in order to address um many of the concerns made by the public um we spe excuse me specifically focused on noise and uh Public Safety from a noise perspective um there are conditions recommending um or there's a recommended condition restricting the um exterior noise levels produced from the facility to 65 DB um this is comparative to um a conversation between two people and this is also um when staff does these uh uh when we do inspections of this uh we do take into account the uh ambient noise levels of the street live entertainment activity um after 11: p.m. shall also be confined to the basement by condition um there is a number of barriers between the front primary entrance of the the business on Sierra Street to the basement which um staff expects will reduce um noise impacts um from that area outdoor speakers are to be restricted in use after 10 p.m. and exterior doors particularly emergency exits directly leading to uh the basement are to be closed after 9:00 p.m. and only used in the event of emergency and this is intended to reduce intermittent noise impacts when doors are open and release sound um we're we're looking to staff has conscious of those impacts as well if any um of the conditions or if all the conditions are implemented appropriately and there still are noise compliance issues staff is recommending a condition that uh would allow for um the city to go back and work with the applicants to implement specific noise mitigation efforts um to to curb those un um additional impacts that weren't considered um at this time from a public safety perspective a security security plan must be approved by by the code enforcement department and the police department um included in that security plan there is a requirement for a minimum number of security personnel which the applicant referenced a rate of one um security officer per 50 patrons um there are some uh additional video surveillance requirements both a review of their existing um indoor and exterior or interior and exterior um camera plan as well as some uh retention requirements for um for um yeah just retention of video requirements um in addition to that we are also requiring an evacuation plan as this is a highdensity use inside of a basement we um we have a special attention to uh the uh uh capacity for uh Patriots to leave quickly in the event of an emergency um cues shall be orderly and maintained through um stanion along the sidewalk according to that that image there and um they must maintain um adequate pedestrian access on the sidewalk at all times on the screen are the findings for a conditional use permit with the recommended conditions um staff was able to meet all the findings and on the screen is the recommended motion I'm available for any questions thanks C appreciate it all right well now Shi into disclosures from the Commissioners commissioner RoR Meer please start off commissioner rer I've been to the property okay commissioner velto please commissioner valto been to the property uh multiple times commissioner rera visited the site reviewed public feedback uh emails and so forth commissioner Armstrong I've also uh been to the site I've patronized the site and I've read and received emails commissioner M have read and received emails commissioner villan W read and received emails I have also visited the site in the past I don't know how long ago but um patronized the site so uh red and received or commissioner dra red and received emails and familiar with the site all right with that said we will go into public comment we'll go and start off with the people with the request to speak forms first up is Morton H wishing to make a statement in opposition and after Morton will be an cascarano thank you MERS press press a little button if you don't mind sir perfect I can hear me okay thank you uh first of all thank you for the job you're doing for the City of Reno um I I do oppose this number one uh what renox presented tonight is not in fact what LC LDC 24-29 is requesting it's requesting um operation from 11:00 p.m. to 10 a.m. any day of the week so I think it's important when we look at what you're being asked to approve is not what they're asking what they're telling you they're requesting for so I think on that reason alone we should not approve this action until that gets resolved furthermore they talk about a lot of mitigation plans e such as ejection but we don't know what that plan is and they talk about the job to monitor uh outside the premises so when they are ejected they're supposed to monitor for noise outside but on a public sidewalk I don't think they have any Authority whatsoever to really do anything thing other than be a sidewalk monitor so there's no detail again working with the police department what exactly they're required to do do I think they're going to call the police department if they have an issue be in a bar I sort of doubt it but there's nothing detailed that you know as a Planning Commission or we know as residents living across the street we've lived a nightmare for the last eight years with the sticks bar and uh everybody throws up their hands that well it's a mixed Zone residential area if you you try to rep call in a disturbing of the police to 911 you get scolded you're not allowed to call us you have to call the non-emergency number you call the non-emergency number and that's if time if time allows they will return your call and typically is it's uh 45 minutes to an hour before you get a call back in the meantime whatever disturbance is going on whether they're just drunk happy intoxicated people or angry upset a physical altercation or verbal altercation this goes on and on and and the best the police department normally do is if they have a car available they'll send one to drive by but typically they don't have uh the resources to stop and address this issue so we have lived with that night after night Thursday night was college night so that was a loud noisy night Friday night Saturday night and sometimes Sunday night what would depending on what was going on I know my time's about out um but being being simply monitoring what's going on outside doesn't resolve the issue when nobody has the ability to do anything with it they can't I don't think they have the legal Authority on a public sidewalk to do anything and the police department doesn't have the resources to respond so the residents living across the street have to live with this noise disturbance night after night after night and I've lived with it for the last eight years and I really request I understand it's mixed use but I bought my pres my my property at the paao knowing that it was zoned for residential and I think it's reasonable and prudent that residents have a reasonable expectation to get a night's sleep it is a safety issue not just a nuisance thank you for your time sir thank you appreciate it an cascarano wants to make a statement in opposition and after am will be Robert rkin okay button here uh green is go okay there you go oh my name is an cascarano I live at the padio I pretty much agree with everything that was just said uh the sticks bar was just ongoing no one ever did anything about it it just ongoing crazy noise and I was thinking the same thing about um yeah there are good security inside your building but bouncers bounce people outside and then everybody else deals with it so yeah please don't let them do this and um if this was going to happen next to your house would you want that where you live where do you live do you want this at your house that's just what I'm asking because we live there where do you live thank you thank you Robert would like to make a statement in opposition and after Robert will'll be Marilyn Johnson yes my name is Robert rapkin from plao um I think that the issue a lot of the speech a lot of the presentation focused on what was going inside the bar but uh that really is not uh does not affect the the neighbors and the neighborhood the issue is who's going to clean up the mess on the outside on the sidewalk in the streets recently there were some shootings and not I don't think I don't know if it was on this block or the next block but um if you extend hours uh if you extend drinking long enough well you're going to get more and more of that uh Rowdy Behavior and uh so I think it needs to be anything that's done to increase the that's could be expected to increase the disruption uh outside of the bar needs to be mitigated by the bar and I don't know if they have the legal ability to do that I don't know who would uh it's what chip said is that the uh the police department is over over stretched and and um so this is this does not seem very responsible uh to me thank you thank you Marilyn would like to make a statement in opposition and after Marilyn will be mgal Rivera um I've lived downtown for 23 years and um this all sounds good from what they're trying to do to prevent any problems however he he showed a number of other bars and I'm at the Arlington towers and what worries me is it sets a precedence for bars to stay open so late the music is loud the people come out drunk I've had to call the police numerous times I hear fighting going on I hear women screaming they walk up the river and everything and they raised our taxes um I have four units there they raised my taxes saying that we have more police coverage downtown there's nobody down there when all this screaming is going on if I call the police it you know they'll come down Second Street with maybe four cars or something but you know working as a nurse I needed my sleep at night I had to get up at you know 4:30 in the morning to go traveling to my jobs and stuff and people that are working need to have rest and um I'm concerned about the residents down here they said they wanted more residents in downtown Reno and where they're building more and more apartments and condos but this isn't really working in our favor for residen is when they come out of These Bars and I'm not speaking for this particular one I don't live close enough to it but the ones that I do live by the people drink a lot they come out very drunk at 3: and 4 in the morning and all the chaos starts so I'm really concerned about um setting a presidence if if this is approved what other bars are going to ask for the same Privileges and some are you know very close to me so I I hope you take it into consideration for the residences of downtown Reno and what happens late at night and three and four in the morning so thank you very much thank you as well mcgall Rivera wishes to make a statement in opposition and after him is Paul Irving hi um I'm Mall Rivera I live at the Montage and my concern is that this is going to set a precedent um I'm also concerned that the city doesn't really have a plan to mitigate noise and so when I when I complain about noise um I'm told that there's not really a level that that can be measured which I've lived in other cities I don't really understand why there's not a plan for that so I understand that the bar is going to try to do their level best but when things do happen there's really not a protocol that works to address the noise to address bad behavior to address any kind of noise level to address vibrations coming from it um and again you know we're welcomed here as we're going to revive downtown but I think a lot of the people who thought that they would establish themselves here are beginning to doubt that this is the place for them if just going to be a a Party Town 247 and we just have a lot of things that are coming down the pike that are going to be creating more outdoor noise um thank you thank you as well Paul wishes to make a statement in opposition and after Paul will be Jennifer Hagen yes Paul Irving representing the padio next door 50 North Sierra Street we're on the southwest corner I'm going to Echo many of the concerns you've heard this evening we've noticed that the later these bars are open um the more people congregate drink and we bear the burden of it there's no question that the security that the Reno ax will provide certainly will do them well but the problem is people coming and going the later in the later uh e evening hours or early morning hours um really just spills over to the neighbors and we know that we're in a mixed use area we certainly Embrace that and we embrace the businesses downtown but I would ask this commission to have a vision for the future of downtown Reno um many of our condos now are approaching the million Mark million dollar Mark or even higher we have a lot of highend condos not only the padio the Montage Arlington Towers River Walk others and and I would just ask the commission to think of the future of downtown Reno and again we Embrace local business we really do that's one reason why we live downtown but when you're looking at a down town that has this mixed this mixed use of high-end condos um we just ask that you consider that and certainly again I'll reiterate we we embrace the business we love walking down downstairs to the various restaurants bars establishments it's fantastic that's one of the beauties of living downtown but we we re we all of us have a vision for downtown Reno and really want to make it succeed and do well and we we bring a certain class to downtown and we just ask that you consider that uh don't run us out of town by allowing bars to be open open all night um just consider those that live there I will reiterate what has been said we have no question the security for Reno ax will be will will will be fantastic but it's a block away two blocks away it's the noise spills out and we bear the burden of it um the fights um the drunk and disorderly and I think has what uh has been discussed before about the ropd unfortunately they they do a phenomenal job but they just don't have the Manpower and from a priority perspective when they do get a call for a um unruly disturbance or what have you um it's just not a priority so it takes it takes a while um so again thank you for your time thank you for all you're doing and uh really appreciate you listening to the comments thank you thank you Jennifer wishes to make a statement in opposition hello thank you for this opportunity to speak I really appreciate it and I um also do appreciate businesses in downtown as you've already heard others talk about and and I like I haven't patronized the axar but I liked what it added to the downtown feel I think it's obviously a well-run business however um I have similar concerns to what's already been expressed as far as um this may set a precedent um the I think the bigger issue are the systemic issues that you've heard about so I've lived in downtown now for almost 12 years when I moved downtown because I was excited to live downtown there was a pretty good police presence they really responded very quickly and I agree that now they seem to have trouble responding and I don't think that's their fault I think they're just probably underst staffed and I think there was also a plan to replace the police presence with some um uh I forget what they're called they're the the folks that ride around on on Segways and stuff and and meet people on the street um ambassadors very nice people but they can't deal with is serious issues like this Additionally the there's no seems to be no effective way to mitigate sound problems we want people to come and visit the city as well no one's talked about the guests that we invite to our city and for them to come to sleep in a hotel downtown and not be able to sleep because the noise is pretty constant is also I think um opposed to what we want to have downtown a place that people love to come and visit um so those I'm expressing very similar to concerns to what you've already heard here as far as safety noise mitigation um inade inadequate police presence to deal with disruptive behavior thank you thank you as well appreciate it Michelle anybody on Zoom or any voicemails we might have missed um we did not have anybody registered to speak via Zoom uh correspondence was received there were two in favor and 10 opposed those were forwarded to the Planning Commission and have been entered as part of the record no voicemails were received thank you anybody else in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or the applicant commissioner Armstrong please so for staff actually have three sorry um so the first one uh there's a good point uh brought up during public comment and the staff report it does have longer hours than what was indicated would we is there an amendment that has already been proposed is it part of the conditions or would we have to make an amendment to cap it at 3:00 a.m. and not move it into 10: a.m. so the the um original postcard and there was some discussion about this initially about what should have gone out um the postcard indicates the trigger for the application in that any operation of live entertainment between 11:00 a.m. and 10 or sorry 11: p.m. and 10: a.m. requires this right there's a currently so there's two elements here one condition one requires that that um they comply with what was submitted so they submitted an application to operate till 3: a.m. okay the conditions were on top of that and then I am we we were recommending a condition to limit it to 3 3 a.m. so it's they will not be able to operate past 3:00 a.m. um with those predictions um another thing you had mentioned in your um in your presentation there's a condition for sort of a triggering EV that around noise complaints so if whatever's been implemented as a result of our potential approval if if there's more complaints that would trigger further action is there a number on the amount of complaints like is it discretion like how does that work how does it end up coming back to to the city to to request further conditions it would be I mean an administrative discretion in in Code Enforcement when we start looking at um so that there's frequent noise complaints that go above and beyond what what we we can control um with the conditions um we're able to implement sound studies I can't really say what that number might be but I think that um our staff is more and more concerned about uh noise complaints regarding live detainment businesses so I imagine there I mean we'll we'll develop a consistent pattern or sorry like we'll be consistent I think I think that the other intent is to be consistent across the city and our enforcement of noise complaints too okay no I just I was curious just how that process works and we've had I think similar conditions where it ends up falling on code and enforcement becomes kind of a code enforcement administrative issue so I just wanted to make sure I was tracking that and then my last question is related to sort of the the precedent setting my understanding is that this conditional use permit is available to any bar that operates downtown and it would have the same set of Standards if they wanted to make this ask so irrespective of a decision that's made today that conditional use permit is not special to this establishment I do you see where I'm going with that yeah that's that's correct so any any bar or any business for that matter it's not specific to a bar that wants to operate live entertainment past 11:00 p.m. this this process is available to them and staff and the Planning Commission are able to look at the specific considerations of the area and the surrounding uses I will I will also note that the um conditions that are represented in the staff report are um through some effort by um uh City staff uh to upgrade our capacity to enforce noise compliance um associated with these businesses and it's probably expected this will be the norm of the conditions moving forward um as well as even current businesses that may already have entitlement we may be able to go back and look at their existing plans and bring them so that there's a Level Playing Field across um all those businesses that operate live entertainment okay great thank you for that detail I really appreciate it commissioner dra I'll jump in just piggyback on your second question just so I have some clarity to Carter so on the noise complaint or code enforcement I guess what I was hearing from public comment and what we've heard from everybody is it's not so much about the noise coming from the basement but the the noise that comes outside so if qu code enforcement you know or or there's noise complaints and we can't necessarily associate it to one business or another would that affect someone like the applicant whether that was their fault or not or their patrons or not I guess it just seems convoluted on that intersection where there's I guess two bar well three bars or two bars in a restaurant I'm just curious how that would go because i' feel bad if it had nothing to do with their establishment and there was noise on the Southwest block yeah so so um to poke at specific conditions the one relating to noise when we when we do inspections um and verify uming code enforcement verifies um compliance with the sound level restriction um I think it's it's evident when you take a device that read sound bring it next to the building go away from the building go to another B like there's ways that we can Target in where this sound source is um on a general note I think that code enforcement is developing um with the police department I mean a strategy for for dealing with noise compliance in with live entertainment businesses the first part is establishing these cons conditions and um and we're actively working to um um ensure that that we are able to comply or Implement them um across the city okay yeah thank you that clears it up I guess I just didn't see the issues about being the sound in the basement but more or less sound pouring out of the bar but the doors are going to be closed I think after 9 or 10 and it sounds like we don't the city the staff doesn't have any issue with the potential noise coming out of the establishment is that somewhat accurate with the conditions we expect that those areic great with if that's followed okay great thanks commissioner VTO please yes thank you um Carter I think my question's for you when you look at the compatibility of the surrounding areas like how big of a how big how far away are you looking when you're looking at compatibility so from a sound perspective which I think is was is a priority for for um compatibility in this case I mean we are looking from I mean in the mediate area which is a lot of residential but our conditions are really the exterior of the building is there impacts even beyond that so from a compatibility perspective it's it's less about um the I think the proximity to other uses it's more is any use going to be impacted NE negatively by by this and and um like from a sound perspective like we're we're I if you put a sound reader on the wall of the building is it triggering um that's I guess that answers your question we we're well I guess I understand the con of sound but one of the findings for cup is compatibility with the surrounding areas and my reading of that is we're to look at what the surrounding uses are and determine compatibility and certainly if we were to say this is the scope of where we look at compatibility we probably wouldn't look at the you know Mareno livestock Event Center or somewhere in downtown Sparks we'd probably draw a circle and we'd say this is where we analyze compatibility do you have an impression as to what that zone is we look at when we determine compatibility I think generally when we're looking at downtown and this is supported by the master plan in the mix of uses that there is going to be the that we're expecting these kind of interactions to occur so from a compatibility um perspective I think I would defer to the master plan and that we expect for this and we need to respond accordingly with with conditions that are going to mitigate those impacts um so that's I think where staff is coming from it's not necessarily a question of is a bar or nightclub in the same building even incompatible with a uh residential above it's are we able to provide mitigation so that these these uses coexist together okay I think my next questions might be for the applicant they might be able to answer this a little bit better if one of y'all could come up to the podium so it's been a couple years since I've been out at downtown Reno at 3:00 a.m. so I'm trying to get understanding of to what other establishments have similar music and whatnot uh do you know when like West Second closes the karaoke bar yeah West Second closes advertised 3:00 a. but they regularly go past that okay so 3 or 4 a.m. could you just state your name for the records please name is Alex Groen good name um so 3: or 4 a.m. and they do live karaoke on the first floor is that accurate yes and they have glass windows yes all the way down and then for say Eden do you know what time Eden closes uh most of my staff will go there on occasion 3 or 4 a.m. and uh one up one up do they still exist it's been a few years uh they used to go to 3:00 a.m. with their and then five star five star regularly later I've walked by it at six and they're still going and how about tonic is tonic still open yeah tonic is still open Way Beyond three okay and all of those locations are within a how many minute walk from Reno ax five minutes maybe okay um and I just want to be clear from the questioning earlier your request is solely to go till 3:00 a.m. on Friday Saturday yes sir and then the other nights would be your typical Closing Time yep at 11:00 okay and it's only to have the live music downstairs not upstairs absolutely okay thank you and commissioner belto technically Thursday Friday Saturday night my apologies no you're good sole Thursday Friday Saturday commissioner roer we don't want to forget about you in Virtual and do you have any questions I don't have any questions thank you commissioner Bill NOA oh she raised her finger first lady ladies first commissioner Villa go ahead thank you um I'll start with staff okay so um I appreciate the questioning from commissioner belto that was a lot of what I was going to get to um with respect I I do think compatib compatibility is a key factor um with what we're looking at here um but before I get to that I have a couple just uh questions to help me understand um so with regard to the bars just being open let's put aside the live entertainment how late is this bar permitted to be opened with or without or actually without music 24 hours okay so it could be open 24 hours even if we don't have music correct okay so that kind of helps me understand a little bit about you know the people outside so if we didn't have live music the folks could still congregate outside is that I mean potentially potentially yeah okay because and how late do this is for the applicant if you wouldn't mind approaching so so right now how late uh do you guys stay open without do you have nights where you don't have music no okay you have music every night okay and how late well I guess it doesn't matter actually that's a moot point okay so back to staff sorry for the back and forth but I'm just trying to understand this okay so with compatibility the point is to have these entities coexist right because it's a mixed use space they knew what they were getting into when they moved to the area as a as a business as a small business and the residents also simultaneously knew what they were getting into when they moved to mixed used area um when we look at these um entities um going back to compatibility do you think that I mean commissioner belto mentioned that there was these other bars five star and some of the others he mentioned um would you say that that does that they all do fall within the that Spectrum for review uh of compatibility or go ahead so there there's a number of um obviously there's a number of bars downtown they established at different times um with different requirements so uh we do have to look at each IND each individual case to identify what um specific conditions were applied at the time if any there are some of those that they have no restrictions because it's just we didn't regulate it back then I say back then 20 30 years ago so um actually it's probably further but regardless it uh as new ones come in we're we're looking to bring them into conformance as even new operators we're re looking at those um original entitlements and seeing if we can apply the same standards um to slowly bring each business into conformance with What's um in our view acceptable in a mixed use environment okay that's a really good point because you point out how we do it every it's a case-by case basis so for instance five star which is a couple blocks down from the residential units that these um a lot of the public commenters where a lot of the public commenters live versus in this case where it's right next door I mean there's the the how we look at that going to be Case by case and in that case for you when when look at this application would you say that that should be taken into consideration a nextdoor neighbor versus you know a bar that's down the street so yeah I mean I think definitely the those the closer proximity to residential the the more we should look at those issues that could that um that From staff's perspective would impact our finding of compatibility okay and then one more actually I'll hold off on this one I'll let other people um chime in thank you sure great commissioner Munoz uh commissioner she actually asked and my question was answered um so I'm just go into discussion when you guys are ready that's why I let her go first commissioner B please thank you sir um guess for Carter we we've heard a lot of uh conversation around mix use and what's allowed and so forth and I think sometimes it's helpful just to ground ourselves on a vision um would you mind sharing with us and feel free to defer to maybe staff as well to chime in but uh what what is the vision of downtown when we talk about mixed use are we talk you know can you paint us a picture of is it night life with folks being able to walk and live in downtown is there a quiet Corridor within downtown so from the master plan perspective um and I think I I did bring up some like from the context photo that I gave for this specific intersection because I think it is representative of what we want to see downtown is a lot of um land uses on the ground floor that are going to directly interact with the pedestrian environment they going to draw people in um while also providing this the um the opportunity for residential um office for for these other uses that um um economically support a mixed use environment particularly in downtowns um I think generally there was concern over um our like a vision for how to manage those those compatibility issues and I I me I'll say that staff is continually working on those those those issues and I think a big step is um these conditions like this that give staff the ability to um enforce some of those in um I don't want to call them incompatibilities because I don't I don't believe that they they need to be I think that these there are ways to provide symbiosis between different land uses different ways of life and um different uses for our downtown core great thanks Carter uh I think it was was it 31c the entertainment and tourism factor is that the one you were referring to yes okay um and we heard sticks bar thrown around a few times I've personally never gone there or anything but just for clarity um is is it a one toone comparison or is it two separate matters altogether they are two separate matters um the stick bar was originally approved under a separate entitlement it was a different business um when and it was a while ago um there are conditions that we are able to implement um and just as I said when we go and um code enforcement goes through and reviews these old entitlements we're able to identify ways that we can um make better um those operations so they're not as impactful in the future great thanks and just one more for you and then one for the other applicant um when when we when the city looks into these kind of Cups does does it also talk with RPD in this case because there was a lot of conversation about safety and late night calls and um gather feedback from RPD to get a sense if if they're aligned with this like if they can support the potential uptick in activity and calls and so forth yeah so these conditions were crafted with the um consultation of the renal Police Department um and generally in looking at the Cs there's often a requirement for a security plan that has to be approved by the administrator and that would that would include um the Cod code enforcement depart department and Reno Police Department we just explicitly mentioned it in this condition and I think moving forward we'll do that as well okay great thank you so much Carter may I get it one more for the applicant you may commissioner B thank you sir hey great presentation guys um you mentioned that uh you were a pre-party location but where do folks go after the Devil's hour 3:00 a.m. if like when you know when if they're if you're planning to keep them there does your model change from a pre pre-party location to more of a just stay and hang out here got it um we see a natural decline in our customer base right around 11 o'clock and it's usually evidenced by sales anyway so we're looking to kind of hang on to the smaller group of people that want to remain and hang out the downstairs bar has a lot of games in it pool basketball that kind of stuff so it's you know we're just looking capitalize on that and run a little bit longer now to answer the first part of the question where do people go me personally I'll go to our bar but they don't usually operate that long um five star is a great place if there's an event going on um and so we're kind of going down first street or we're going to the right so I don't know what direction that is out of our building and up Sierra okay great thank you and um in addition you know just commend you for how you run your shop there um I did pop my head in just random randomly and your staff was very welcoming they showed me around I didn't even know you had a basement to tell you the truth and it was it was a great experience so if it's anything like that for most folks and Kudos um if things were to move forward how would you assess if things are working or not like two months down the road three months down the road multiple factors I would say um obviously the first one on our is just revenues sales number two right away would be the impact to the neighborhood believe it or not we really care and that's why we reach out to the h and a couple of you guys um we we want we want to know we want to care and want to make sure that neighborhood is safe we have multiple businesses um and we want to make sure it keeps going well to answer some of PR's comments too like when we do see things outside we actually do call the police and they do come because it comes from a business so it's easier to get probably a faster response so we do believe also being stay staying late a little bit longer will actually help like the city being safer could you just state your name for the record please yeah thank you thank you all right thank you question commissioner villo God thank you thank you this is actually for the applicant I try to catch you before you sat down appreciate get you get your exercise okay so the so now that I understand you operate with live entertainment most nights if not every night do you uh more often than not generate a queue outside your business we only have a queue only like about four nights a year um but also to maybe like correct one of your statement we do not have live entertainment right now past 11 we do have music it's just not a DJ it's not someone who actually is here producing the music so the only thing we're asking here is to have someone potentially playing the music or having Koke Koke request needs live entertainment license okay and then I noticed in your presentation as opposed to the staff presentation you said Friday Saturday um because what I'm thinking about proposing is because we do have to try and coexist in this mixed use space and as I indicated earlier you all knew that it was a mixed use and vice versa they knew and so we do have to make it work in a way that makes sense for everyone so would your business be open to only Friday Saturday if we did give you that extension to 3:00 a.m. um instead of Thursday and the reason I ask is because Friday's still a workday for many people and you know um in order to really make this work I think if we take that into consideration I think it that'd be a good compromise so it seems like yes you're nodding okay thank you absolutely no further questions great no problem looks like we might want to shift into discussion commissioner VTO please um so I'm in support of this as it's proposed by the city staff I think when we look at the surrounding areas it would be unfair for us not to permit this type of use I think West Second karaoke bar is probably in the eyes of the neighbors 10 times worse than what is being proposed we're talking about live music downstairs with the door shut uh as opposed to West Second karaoke bar which is loud music very thin glass and that's a two-minute walk away from reeno Ax so I think that there's um I think it makes sense I can make all the findings and I'll be supporting what staff has proposed commissioner drage uh same sentiments I like it as proposed I'd hate to hinder a business who could possibly uh profit and bring you know people to their establishment at a at a time that I think in a district that's still applicable and I understand the concerns from that but I like it as proposed commissioner Munos thank you commissioner Muno um I I think what uh what the ax is asking for is completely reasonable um I don't frequent downtown often but when I do and I've been there late at night um you can find a bar two-minute walk from this place running till 3:00 a.m. everywhere so for for us to come up here and say oh no you're the only one that's not permitted to do this um there was there was talk of a precedent being set the precedent has already been set and for us to come in and say okay well now we're going to limit you when you're not even half as asking or or what you're asking for is is less than what every other bar has down there already for us to limit you and say no we won't allow this is uh in my mind it is um not the spirit of what downtown is downtown is is uh business oriented um that area is it's always been a bar area for the last 25 years I've been here it's it is what it is um and by us allowing music downstairs uh that is not going to impact what we're allowing the music is not going to impact the area it's just going to allow this uh this bar to um maybe hold on to its customers a little longer and generate more Revenue um I think we'd be wrong not to approve this so thank you thank you commissioner B please sure uh I Echo the sentiments of my Commissioners I'll I'll also be supporting this but I do want to stress that I empathize with the concerns um but for what it's worth uh these guys are pretty dang neighborly um one of the things I always look for is is you know who's running the ship and uh it seems like they've been really thoughtful and again kudos to you guys and so I think that um I I if what we've seen tonight in the presentation their Outreach efforts uh is any indication of how things are going to go I think things are going to be not just good for that particular corner but perhaps the model for how others should move forward with uh seing a cup as well um and Carter CR job as well commissioner rer you want in thank you yes um I wanted to share the same sentiments with my fellow Commissioners I'll be supporting this project um are the CP for this project I wanted to say that for a compatibility standpoint I think the discussion is quite interesting since this business has been upstanding if if you will for four years they haven't had code enforcement issues they've been good neighbors for several years so to me they've proven their compatibility in so many ways and what they're asking is in nowhere near as um dramatic as things that are on the same block so I would like to just uh wish them good luck and I thought Carter did an excellent job talking about how the master plan applies in this case for the sort of urban perspective Ive so um I hope and I I sense that the conditions that the city went through to design mitigation um will satisfy um neighborly potential conflicts that don't even exist at this time thank you thank you commissioner Armstrong first please go ahead could you please turn your mic on sorry apologies commissioner Armstrong I was going to Concur and make a motion so if you have more discussion I will hold off thank you uh thank you chair so I agree in part and disagree in part so generally speaking I I think that it is appropriate to Grant the extension but I disagree with allowing for Thursday partly because I think uh you know some of the commenters made a good point about the vision and you know you know oddly enough our next item up is regarding affordable housing and multi- excuse me uh multif family housing and um kind of moving forward with um more of that within the city and so I think we do need to take that into consideration and as uh staff mentioned earlier the you know it is a case-by case basis and yes we do have neighboring businesses such as um and I hate to keep using five star but that's the only one that I can think of right now um neighboring businesses um but you know these guys are direct neighbors and I think if it's not really a huge deal in my mind if they compromise a little they have music the rest of the the week um and we're going to get potentially give them this extension I don't think it's a huge deal if we say okay you get only Friday Saturday and then let's give a little to the neighbors um and so for the most part yes I agree with some of my colleagues but I would ask that we only approve Friday Saturday um and I mean nothing's stopping them from coming back in the future and asking for that extra day once we kind of see how this goes um but I just I think it's giving too much too quick and we can you know start with Friday Saturday so that's kind of my position thank you looks like we were you going to make a motion commissioner Armstrong uh yeah I was ready to make a motion um in the case of lc2400 29 Reno a based on compliance to the applicable findings I move to approve the Comm conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report as presented all right we have a motion commissioner 12 second all right we have a motion and a second we'll go roll call Michelle please okay Drac kulich yes Armstrong yes Basera yes Munos yes r yes VTO yes villain NOA no motion passes 6 to1 thank you good luck with your business could you please read the appeal process into the record oh yep you got it give me a moment appeal process any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Reno city council by the applicant the mayor or a city council member or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction an appeal together with fees must be filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notes of the action is filed with the city clerk thank you all have a good night thank you all right we will now move on to item 5.2 case number tx24 d001 Title 18 affordable housing initiatives I'm assuming we're just getting oh Miss F hello you tell me hit the green button though or the blue that's now green all right good evening Commissioners for the record Angela F assistant director with development services here tonight to talk about a text Amendment so it's been a while since the City of Reno has processed a text Amendment this is something we do periodically this is anything impacting Title 18 goes to the Planning Commission so this text amendment is specific to housing initiatives we've talked a lot about some of the changes we're making within the zoning code um that will be before you guys next month but this one specifically is just on a targeted text Amendment dealing with housing um kind of two things we're looking at is one is addressing some of the affordable housing concerns and the second really is the supply of housing so you may ask well why are we doing this now a couple reasons one is this is um not something that's unique to Reno or Nevada uh you know the whole nation really is dealing with a housing crisis it's a crisis that's been going on for a couple years it's an issue of supply and cost um and we're seeing it everywhere so this is not something that just Reno is doing jurisdictions across the country are trying to deal with how do we we uh address affordability again cost and and how do we address Supply so the second big issue that we're dealing with is assembly Bill 213 this was something that our legislature passed this last session and they basically said local jurisdictions by July of 2024 which is in five months you need to come up with some new ordinances that help affordable housing get to Market faster meaning find a way to process affordable housing projects and you can also add some deviations meaning make it easier to get those housing projects to Market and again that was specific for the affordability piece so um again while housing and supply of housing is something that our city council has prioritized even more so now because the state legislature has mandated that we do something to address these issues so just want to make this clear maybe to the the audience um what this is not addressing is something outside of Title 18 so there's been a lot of discussions about evictions and um mandating you know rent control that is not something we as a zoning body can control so that's not what's being discussed today the other things that we've heard a lot about is accessory dwelling units those are things like granny Flats um and and short-term rentals and so that's the the vrbos and the airbnbs so we are addressing those separately not as part of this initiative and again we have a a number of different zoning code changes that we'll address in the future specifically related to all of our zoning code cleanup items not related to housing we did want to just highlight that we have done a pretty extensive public Outreach process we reached out to multiple new sources they did interviews so we tried to kind of target folks that watch the news for folks that don't watch the news we tried to hit more of that social media City of Reno has a a pretty good following either on Twitter um Facebook and some of these other social media so we we blasted that out we also have a pre pretty good email list of people that are stakeholders are interested in things that Reno does so we blasted it to all these different groups and we held three different stakeholder meetings um we held those in January they were all virtual so you could attend at any time we recorded them and we also put them on our website and I will say generally speaking we we don't get a ton of input when we do stakeholder meetings not many people show up of those three stakeholder meetings we had about 145 attendees that's probably the highest stakeholder input we had on anything compared to the zoning code we held nine meetings as opposed to three stakeholder meetings and we had a quarter of the number of attendees in nine meetings on the zoning code that we have had on the housing stakeholder meetings now that tells me that housing it is a big deal for this community right people are concerned and want to know what are we doing so let's go over there's basically four main issues or areas that we're covering we're going to go over each of those and then we'll open it up to questions so the first one is again dealing with that ab23 what are we doing to incentivize affordable housing we've come up with some new regulations um that really just look at what we're doing now and and escalate it up higher so right now we have what we call some some density bonus regulations we have parking reductions things you can do if you have affordability uh meaning like some kind of subsidized housing this is truly lwi income housing um so again what the State Legislature did is find a way to get that to Market faster so what we're proposing is if you can meet that 60% Ami then you would be exempt from having to go through a conditional use permit or a site plan review that entitlement again that gets them to Market faster now we want to add that this does not exempt you from going into a zoning District that does not allow multif family you have to be zoned for multif family and you can't just throw in something that deviates from code so if you're like you know the code allows me to go three stories I'm going to go five stories we don't allow that you still have to meet the code requirements um but we have things like oh you have a a conditional use permit that's triggered because you have let's say more than 50 units right our code just has certain areas that if you have a certain number of units you have to go through an entitlement so we're saying those are the types of projects that would be exempt if you're affordable um from having to go through that entitlement and then second from that is how can we get them through the process faster so if we exempt them from that entitlement review that's going to Planning Commission or going through any kind of public hearing what else can we do at a a building permit stage we are going to help FastTrack them through the building permit so we will sign a staff liaison somebody already within our staff that would basically hold their hand walk them through be there to answer any questions immediately again nothing that affects you guys nothing that really affects the zoning code just something internally we would do and a high level you're thinking wow that seems like a lot of Staff time it's not because we don't get a lot of affordable housing projects generally we get two to three projects a year that's nothing so if we get nothing what can we do to get something right again small incentives that can hopefully make a difference okay the other big thing we do is this density bonus it's already in coat so if you do affordable housing we allow you to add more units and there's a cap it's not Unlimited um right now we cap you at a 45% Max density bonus so if you're bringing in 10 new units a 45% density bonus is four units so instead of 10 units you can do 14 that's the cap now that 45% what we said is are we being kind of narrow-minded in terms of who is this um lowincome you know end user right now we're just saying 60% and less gets these benefits 60% of that average median income we looked at state law state law actually has two other categories of what they consider to be low income so we said well we should probably match state law and provide incentives for those same types of low-income housing so we're adding this um I would say 61% to 80% Ami again 80% Ami is what we consider Workforce housing it's not um the the very lwi income housing but again it's more the workforce um so we're proposing if you're providing that 80% average median income you could use that density bonus and get a 45% density bonus if you're above that and you're in the 80 to 120% of the Ami we're saying you should still get a density bonus because you're not doing market rate you're still providing some kind of subsidy so we're proposing to do a 35% density bonus we don't typically see those housing projects I think I can think of one in the entire seity of Reno in the last probably 10 years that's provided that 80% Workforce housing so again not a lot of projects meet this requirement um but if it's encouraging more development to do that type of of a affordable housing project great now the big difference here is that very bottom category so the 0o to 60% again right now you can get a 45% density bonus we're proposing to have unlimited density bonus in the past three years because we've already had this density bonusing code we have had one affordable housing project come forward and they requested one additional unit so if what we're doing now is not working this hopefully will make a change it may seem drastic but again we've had one unit in three years benefit from this so let's do more okay so that is specific to affordability and affordable housing the other thing we're trying to address is just housing in general and so specific to Market rate we already have in our code some density bonus allowances for market rate meaning we don't look at the income we don't look at what the price is that you're charging you come in for a building permit and you have units that are a th000 square feet or less pretty small we currently allow you to do this density bonus of up to 45% we're proposing to increase that instead of just capping it at 45% for these smaller units let's go up to 80% so again if you had 10 units and you use that density bonus now you would have 18 units pretty small um again we already have this encode that allows for units that are 1,00 square feet in size or smaller right now you can get a 15% density bonus we're going to increase that to 35% not big but a small change of the smaller units again between 1,000 square feet and 1800 if your unit sizes are closer to 1400 sare ft right now you can do a 30% density bonus and so we're proposing to go up to a a um 45% density bonus so generally speaking is this used we have had um I think about seven projects utilized this in the last three years and a total number of additional units is about 60 so in three years we got 60 new housing units on the market in three years because of the density bonus the majority of the projects that use this just need one or two extra units you can't go taller than what your height allows so it's not like you're going to go crazy um but maybe you're limited by um zoning only allows you to you know put in 10 units you're like gosh if I could just do two more units I can make this project pencil so through that density bonus um it's definitely helps a lot of projects we wanted to give you just some real world examples here's an older building that was built in the 80s and initially they came in with seven units and they had a caretaker's unit back when it was built um so they came in they said hey I'd like to convert that caretaker's unit that was um eventually turned into like a laundry room so over the years it just been kind of redone existing building they said I'd like to take that additional unit um that's not residential today and turn it into another residential unit so I I just want one more unit I'm not expanding the building the footprints the same just taking what's an existing unit that was again more of a a laundry room and converting it so through that density bonus they were able to do that love the idea that we can actually do reuse right you don't have to build a brand new project you can take what's already in our infill areas and get maybe one or two more units here's another example this was Motel 6 this is over off of Stardust um which is by the old bowling alley off seventh and Keystone so we have an existing motel and they said we want to convert it but we don't want to tear it down and start over so it had 88 rooms the zoning actually I had Bard than that I apologize um the zoning allowed it to have 88 units but it had more rooms than that and they were basically taking each Motel units right your room and converting and adding a kitchen making it a living space so through that density bonus they got to add an additional 36 units basically just took existing motel rooms and converted them if we didn't have that density bonus that's 36 units that would not have been able to turn into residential units and again the more housing we can bring regardless of if it's reuse or a conversion the better off we are and then finally one one this is a a new build so I thought this might be of interest to you as well small site um you know there's less than half an acre and they were able to get 16 units with that density bonus they were able to add two more so instead of 16 they got 18 all right the next one is what we're calling uh by development so by right means you come in you talk to the planners and they say oh you're going to trigger a conditional use permit so you have to go through that process by WR means you don't have to go through any entitlement you can go straight to a building permit now we looked at what our code says and what other jurisdictions say our code says if you have between 20 and 100 units you have to go through what we call a minor conditional use permit so it doesn't go to you guys but it still is a 30-day additional review review process anything over a hundred units let's say you have an apartment project with 150 units that would trigger a conditional use permit and go before a Planning Commission so we looked at other jurisdictions Fernley Sparks Carson City Henderson Salem what what are other cities doing this is I would say out of the ordinary for what we see in other local jurisdictions we are unique in that we require a lot of entitlement review where other jurisdictions do not it is very typical for other jurisdictions to trigger an entitlement over a certain unit 100 units 110 units um many jurisdictions if it's Zone multif family just said you can go as many units as you want without an entitlement just meet your density so again because we are more restrictive on that and because we're trying to help housing get to Market cheaper and faster this seemed like a very easy one to say everybody else is doing it this way but us right this is not unique to to Northern Nevada or Nevada it's Unique to us we do way more entitlements for residential development than most of the state so what we are proposing is to say if you're less than a 100 units you don't have to go through an entitlement process you can go straight to a building permit here's some examples of projects in the past couple years that have triggered um some kind of review right so these are projects just to give an example of like what are we talking about so Vesta Apartments this is one that's being built right now it's 40 units they did have to go through that minor conditional use permit it tacked on another probably three months to their whole development timeline and I will say too the challenges that we hear from developers is hey time is money have you seen interest rates it's out of control if these projects had had been able to go to market faster you know that the price that they could build this and the price that then they could rent is drastically different another one there at the the middle there is the Fairview Apartments so 14 units and they ended up triggering a public review process the one on the right uh brand new again Grand Canyon Apartments 18 units pretty small development but it had to go through that additional review process all right and then our final one is what we call the missing middle this is a term I think a lot of um communities are using it's kind of a buzzword but it's a thing right this is everything from your duplex your Triplex really you most of us deal with either apartments or single family but there's a whole lot of housing product in between whether it's Town Homes whether it's for rent um you know there's things that we could be doing to help really increase some of these infill areas and just bring a less expensive housing market or housing product to Market so we looked at what other communities are doing um just I think last week Anchorage Alaska talked about how they are releasing barriers and allowing duplex triplex in all single family zoning districts so again if lasas can do it why can't Reno um right now we allow duplex Triplex and vplex here's a map in all the areas in green so this is a huge swath in the City of Reno where we currently allow duplex Triplex and fourplex what we're proposing is just to increase it add allow them into two additional single family zoning districts which is everything in that orange um and well when we say allow you would still have to go through a conditional use permit again we want the neighbors to have some input on that these are single family zoning districts um and just generally speaking we don't get a ton of this housing product in the last three years we've had 26 building permits come in for a duplex 26 in three years same with Triplex and fourplex we just don't see a lot of these so the more we can do to help bring in again a less expensive housing product maybe you don't want to buy single family home or you can't afford it here's some other housing products that um I think the community would like to see and definitely if you're trying to you know pay rent or pay a mortgage definitely gives you more flexibility so those are again the kind of the four main categories I did have one change to the ordinance um and this is kind of a nothing thing we have um a calculation of how do we calculate density bonus and so um I just wanted to change how we calculate it and we provided an example in your zoning code we had some questions of like H is that really the way we should be doing it so we went back um and we we we figured out a better method to calculate it it's it's not really a thing to even talk about but I just wanted to bring it to your attention that we figured out how to do the math correctly so we made the change um and we're proposing that revision not a big deal but just wanted to highlight that that we are proposing that change um just in how we calculate density bonus so with that um concludes my presentation I do know we have at least one person in the audience wanting to speak on this so I will um pass it over to commissioner dracul thank you Mr F I appreciate it um I don't believe any any more presentations so we will kick it to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner roer please uh commissioner roer I reviewed the staff report and the letters that were received commissioner villan NOA please I don't know what it is with tonight commissioner vill Anda I reviewed I think it was one of the school districts sent us a letter I reviewed that I attended the um meeting one of the stakeholder meetings and that's it thank you commissioner mun I reviewed the letter we received commissioner Armstrong I review the staff report and also review the letters thank you commissioner berera reviewed the letters uh Wast County School District letter attended a city council meeting on a similar presentation um yes commissioner VTO uh same disclosures commissioner Dracula Cher reviewed the letter reads some emails and also spoke directly on the phone with a stakeholder from the school district all right Michelle I'm going to move in into public comment do we have any requests to speak forms voicemails all the things I did not receive any request to speak forms we did receive correspondence that was forwarded to the Planning Commission has been entered into the record no voicemails were received we do have somebody that registered to make public comment via zoom and we have Donna Keat on the on Zoom so we can move her over if you're ready to do that please do okay Donna are you there I am hi are you ready to make public comment I am ready to wing it definely you have three minutes so go ahead okay so um I have a couple of couple of uh problems with these proposals um one is really I'd like you to consider the bigger picture issue of how this is actually really going to help anything the idea is to solve an affordability uh problem this will give us more an at bonuses for 1,800 Square ft etc etc etc so we get more but only more if you can afford more more because the developers don't actually cut their rents just because it costs them less to build it if you've taken a look around so there's a little bit of a fallacy I think in thinking here that um let's just cut out all the requirements cut out public hearings cut out whatever all we're going to cut out to make this happen yet even the staff report says repeatedly we're not expect much out of this we're just going to tip the needle and we they put an enormous amount of time and effort into this and I just don't think it's actually doing anything in the current code the most recent revisions in um the bonuses Etc they actually go all the way down to I think it's 30% Ami and 45% they actually spell out and it encourages the really lowincome housing which we need so nobody's taking us up on it that's unfortunate but by taking the bottom cut off in the tiers to 60% who's going to then go ahead and take their bonuses and take their no entitlement review process and go ahead and build that but still make an effort to provide for the really low income people who need this the most when instead we've got above Workforce level housing bonuses and density bonuses for smaller units etc etc none of which are going to be affordable to the people who need it most so I'd like you I'd like to ask you to consider you know the wisdom of some of these changes that are being made particularly the ones that cut out the very lowincome people as a specific bonus group and make it into a bigger category so that things can go to market faster so go to market faster what we get is more but we only get more for things that can afford them I took a little tour through VRBO earlier today and I saw what's happened to a lot of these studio in one bedrooms that are have been built in the Wells Avenue midtown and part of downtown areas they're all listed as vrbos they're not units that people are renting or that can rent and they're not inexpensive either and I mean to be a rent even if you wanted a longterm tenacy there they're they're vbos they're not available to the residents and I think you have to be a little bit careful about all this sounding so good on paper but Reno is not every other jurisdiction and one size doesn't fit all and Title 18 doesn't just provide background rules that will make everybody do everything the right way because it doesn't happen like that and you've been here long enough to know that because you hear people speak at your meting meetings all the time about what's happening and so I think if that goes straight to building permit and nobody nobody even gets noticed on anything and also another comment I want to point out I believe ma'am your your three minutes up I really appreciate it though dang I one more Point thank you for your time tonight I appreciate it Michelle any more [Music] zoom nope that's it cool anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item item seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the Commissioners for questions commissioner velto yes thank you so much for bringing this forward I have a couple questions for you Angela um I want to talk about the incentives for affordable housing so I really like the density bumps that you're putting together and proposing uh one thing you mentioned though is that there's not an accompanying setback or height change why is that it seems like if we were trying to encourage affordable housing and acknowledging that we need more of it there should be more lenience within the zoning code to allow for that housing to grow and I think it would be good if we were to consistent with density bonuses allow for there to be height and setback bonuses to applicants that were developing this yeah that's a great question I think one of our challenges as we've gone through this process process with the stakeholders is how do we preserve Integrity of existing neighborhoods most of our affordable housing projects are within kind of built environments you generally don't see them in more of the Suburban areas they're more in these infill areas and we're we're always cognizant of the fact that like we don't want to completely change the look and feel of of where anyone lives right so if you have a a neighborhood of one and twostory houses and you're bringing in a a fivestory hypothetically apartment project with you know 200 units that's going to change that neighborhood and so we're trying to find that balance between making things more affordable but not having such a drastic impact that it's going to need negatively impact that neighborhood there are other tools that you know these developers these affordable housing developers can do so they can always request to change the zoning to something that allows for more height um so for inance let's say it's an mf14 zoning right you're capped at two stories if you want to go to mf30 zoning you can do three stories if you want to go to unlimited stories we have a couple other zoning categories that you can do that so there's other avenues I would say to get there um but we just felt it was probably a little too much and I don't I don't know that we were we meaning City of Reno was quite ready to move the needle in a way that could negatively impact the city so I hear what you're saying in terms of um you wouldn't want to give somebody a green light to say just because you know we're building this many houses or this many units we can now build a 20 story building correct but it seems like there could be a middle ground where accompanying a density bonus there was some sort of height bonus that would allow for at least one more floor what would that need to be um to make it under the hypothetical where there was a density bonus and then you also get more height to allow for another floor what would that look like yeah that's definitely something we could add um again we have these kind of different breakdowns of how affordable your project is Right 60% average median income 80% 120 we could propose that if you are meeting some kind of affordability you could go up a story or two stories and we would just allow that as part of a kind of a a special deviation that would be allowed by W if you met that affordability and that I would say the challenge you know to your question is every zoning district is different so depending on which zoning District they're in may not be an issue because a lot of our zoning districts do not have height requirements um but a lot of our more residential projects are in our multif family zoning districts so they're typically capped at the three stories but we could definitely build something into the code that says we could allow you to go up one additional story again if you meet these affordability requirements and we do require that you deed restrict these so you know the concern of oh well maybe they're only affordable for the first year no we actually require that they D restrict them for 20 years you have to be affordable for at least 20 years awesome uh thank you I have a question I have a few other topics I want to cover does anybody have any questions about that we'll come back to you okay commissioner villain please miss food thank you um thank you for the presentation and working on this uh the I just have a couple clarifying questions how many affordable units must there be is there a like a ratio so or does the whole the the requirement yeah so it's 60% of the Ami um to be you know that's what affordable that's how we Define affordable how many of those units so if I have 100 units or sorry 99 units um does only one of those have to meet that Ami or no so the whole project much must average a 60% Ami most of the affordable housing projects have some kind of a ratio a lot of them are split between you know 40% Ami and maybe 65% Ami so we look at that project as a whole and they would have to average all the units um have to meet a 60% Ami so again if they're balancing between let's say 80% and 30% as long as it averages 60% overall then they would get this bonus okay so on average what have you seen what's an example of that that you if you can think of one yeah I mean um again so we get two to three affordable housing projects a year and they either are in like the the 40 unit range or more of the 200 unit range there's kind of a a couple different housing developers that just do different products so typically um the folks that are doing more like 40 or 50 units again they typically use a 60% Ami why um that's just kind of the natur and and I will say I think there's there's a reason why they use that right they get subsidies from the government and so there's minimum requirements for the government on how affordability or I'm sorry what percent of affordability they are providing um so most of them will provide like in another five units of really really affordable like super low income and then the rest of them they kind of average in that 45 to 60% Ami generally speaking okay so on okay so there you you I guess if we had like 50 it's not like we would see 40 come in that are you know pretty pricey and then 10 that come in that are like super low to kind of balance it out and average out at this or could I mean I guess that could be depending on whatever the average was yeah I again um I'd say 99% of the truly affordable housing projects that come in they all kind of do the same thing okay yeah okay thank you but we're trying to encourage more to do that Workforce housing that 80% % we just don't see a lot of that um we would love to see more right because not everybody meets that 60% Ami to even qualify but you know if you are a school teacher you're not making $104,000 a year which is what the average median income is I was going to ask you what is today's average medium it's 104 $104,000 for a four four person family so 60% of that okay y um so that's a family of four making about $62,000 a year would qualify for 60% Ami how would that work I mean I guess if it's a thousand I mean family four in a thousand a th000 square foot unit um is is have you seen that I mean or I guess it could be one person in a thousand foot unit and then in one of the larger units a family of four yep and again most of these housing um affordable housing folks they specialize in some so some of them specialize in seniors right seniors are usually one and two person um per unit um some of them specialize in family so they build generally bigger units like two or three bedroom units um we also have a lot of um affordable housing specific to different things like maybe you are specific to Veterans or I know the Eddie house um they recently came in for a project and so you know they're focused on the the youth um you know the 18 to 25 year olds so they all kind of have a little specialy niche um that they they try to build a product that matches their niche if you are you know doing seniors you generally need one bedroom units you don't need three bedroom units if you're doing multif family obviously you we need more of a two bedroom three bedroom unit one more question and then I'll pass it um so say for example if you know if we were to move forward and we would uh remove the entitlement process for those less than 100 units for those projects less than 100 units what if something were to come forward where there was a matter of like a cut and fill situation um that would still have to come forward because because there's another triggering event right no nope so that's what we're talking about is there's there's a number of things in our code that trigger an entitlement and we're saying if it's a conditional use permit or a site plan review you would be exempt if it's a variance or a deviation you would still have to go through that because you're asking for something outside of what the code allows I'll hold my other questions I have so many okay thank you and before I get to you just just for clarity cuz I was understood Ami as area median income is that correct or is it average median I think you're correct and I area yeah yeah no no you're good so no no you're good I over here I forget it all the time too so a median income and 103 I had actually had an event where they presented economic data and was 83,000 Ami but our So based on 2023 H numbers and it changes every year right average median income changes every year 2023 numbers that we utilize um again HUD puts out this data not us they look at every region so they looked at was County Reno metropolitan area their number was 104,000 and I think I understood it today that it was a potential single person and so do you guys calculate it based on Hud's Ami which is two income earners and two children is that how I understood that so I could give you a whole table of responses but again if we're just assuming a family of four yeah 104,000 is what the average median income is if you want to talk about um you know a family of two or a family of eight it all changes so just to make math simple let's assume it's a family of four perfect and so we have one template and we slap that on to all these projects right we just hold with what you said here family of four right and we have a whole housing division that deals with that stuff so I don't even want to get into the nuances but generally speaking that's what we're dealing with you're good that's what you're doing then we're on the same page I got you thank you commissioner RTO yeah thank you um my next topic I want to ask you about is uh duplexes triplexes quad plexes love that idea I'm very concerned about requiring a cup because in that map I don't know how many projects would satisfy the compatibility requirement of a cup so I feel like we're creating this option that won't actually be realized so uh what is the reasoning for requiring a cup and not just allowing it by right in additional areas yep and kind of the same thing we um again this this Reno Community is either super pro these ideas or super hates these ideas so we were trying to kind of find that middle ground to sync up what everybody hates that we're doing or loves that we're doing and says you should do more or you're doing too much what are you doing so our our compromise was let's add two more zoning districts two more new single family zoning districts um but still trigger an entitlement so there's kind of that Comfort level of if they do bring Bring It Forward and it's in your neighborhood there's still a chance to go through that public review process is there a lesser type of review that would not require compatibility because I still see these getting killed by compatibility it's always going to be a problem I mean anytime you do a public hearing it's going to be an issue the findings is what makes it tough I mean the other option is we just allow it by rate which is something you guys can propose as well so what would that language be if we were to allow it by right um so again in the in the ordinance we proposed which zoning districts would allow duplex Triplex and fourplex and so we would just propose to modify that instead of triggering a conditional use permit and those two new zoning categories they would be permitted by rate and we may just want to if you're going to go that route um we have two other existing single family zoning categories that right now you can go through a conditional use permit so if you're going to allow it by right you may want to propose to allow it in all single family by right and not with that conditional use permit so it would be to amend the proposed ordinance to allow um duplex Triplex and quadplex by right in the sf3 the sf5 sf8 and sf11 Zoning districts those are our single family zoning districts um um tell me why I'm wrong in thinking that this is a good idea I mean again I think our biggest challenge is we we want to get something that can pass and you know we have a deadline of July 1 to get something passed in order to meet that legislative mandate um change is really hard and anything with housing is a very sensitive conversation um I fully support where you're going and I would gladly take that to council I don't have any concerns with that other than again you know is I don't want to go too far down a road and having you know 50 people show up and say this is going to ruin my neighborhood um but again look at where you could do it today and nobody's doing it so we should be doing more of this I will add that you know we talked to a housing developer today just um somebody who actually is doing duplex Triplex Town Homes um and we said why why don't you do more of these is there a market for these they said yeah this is a huge Market but it's just not something we see a lot of so it's not really like you know in our brain to do it we do a ton of single family because that's what Reno does but but there's all these other different types of development that people actually want to live in whether they're renting or buying so I think the more we can do through zoning to make that easier that definitely helps those developers um and again if if you know there's some great looking products out there I think everyone just looks at a duplex and says oh gosh but here's just some examples right these These are these are great and these would actually fit in with your average single family neighborhood so I I think that's something we can definitely push forward to council if the Planning Commission supports that what are the type of sorry just one quick followup what are the types of developers that pursue this type of development versus the bigger development I guess part of my concern with requiring at cup is that my perception is that often times the people that are pursuing duplexes triplexes and lexes are more small scale developers who can't necessarily afford maybe High powerered folks that are able to advocate for their interests so I am I inaccurate is that is this more typically like Mom and Pop shops that are trying to push for these I think what we've seen in the in more recently is it's it's the smaller infill sites so you know if you're a big housing developer you're not looking for half an acre to do a couple units you're looking for bigger kind of bigger property but this is what we typically see in infill areas however that you know that housing developer that I mentioned dear Horton they are a huge National Housing developer and this is again what they're saying is yeah we're starting to do more of this duplex Triplex fourplex um and even just turning them into more of a Town Home Products so they can sell them which is more the model of you know de Horton not like a multif family project but as as Reno starts doing more of this I will say it attracts more of the big housing developers you know tolls of the world are probably not going to do this type um but the Lars and the writers and you know some of these housing developers that do a ton of development in the Reno Market if they see this as like people are buying this then absolutely they jump on this thank you Angela if you don't mind go back to that map I'm having trouble reading the legend and maybe if you want to just expand a little bit more on what I'm seeing here y so what we've done is we've broken everything in green is the zoning districts we have a number of zoning districts where you can do duplex Triplex and warlex so we listed it out right we have the two single family zoning districts today where you can do it we also have three different multif family zoning districts and then we have all of our mixed use zoning um our General commercial zoning neighborhood commercial pretty much almost every type of zoning District you can do these today in the green in the green okay and some of those require a conditional use permit and some are permitted by right but basically everything in green has the ability to have duplex Triplex and fourplex today and the Orange is the orange is two zoning districts sf3 and sf5 so sf3 those are Parcels that are a quarter acre in size 15,000 square F feet and that sf5 those are Parcels that are 9,000 square fet so your average single family home is usually on like a 6,000 square foot so these lots are a little bit bigger than your average single family home but again everything in that orange is either a 9,000 ft or 15,000 ft zoning thank you thank you I'll uh stop commissioner roor Meer don't want to forget about you do you want to jump in with questions or comments yes thanks um great presentation Angela I I want to follow along with a few questions along the lines of commissioner VTO um in terms of not just Building height but some other text amendments looking at code things like parking what are I know there are density bonuses if you will but sort of reducing parking as an opportunity to build out more land where are we on just getting rid of parking potentially for affordable housing we so we we currently have some um regulations in the zoning code that allow you to have reduced parking if you do affordable housing right you have to show that it's truly affordable and we allow you to reduce the parking what we also have is the ability to submit a letter that basically kind of shows your need and shows why you can even reduce it above and beyond that most of our affordable housing projects don't need parking um and again they you know rinse and repeat they do this very well they know what their Market is a lot of them actually build near Transit so that people that don't have cars can walk or or take the bus um so we are extremely flexible with all of our affordable housing projects and we administratively have flexibility already built in the code that allows them to reduce parking to something that that matches their needs then what about these neighborhood plans maybe it is time to take a look at neighborhood character in some of these core neighborhoods the West University comes to mind Wells Avenue comes to mind they have things like as you go higher level you step back um and those kinds of restrictions make it very very hard to meet the height requirement and get these sort of added density bonuses to achieve those they're nearly physical physically impossible and I've worked for small infield developers who have been up against these challenges when do you think or when does the city plan to evaluate these neighborhood plans some of these plans date back to the 90s yeah I mean it's seen a lot of change in Reno in the decades absolutely so what the future yep and so maybe for some of the other commissioners so we have a couple areas where they have specific neighborhood plans and the intent was you know years ago generally they're all 20 30 40 years old the the community got together in a certain geographic area Wells avenu is a great example and they said well if what uses do you want to allow or what additional things do you want to take out um and so it it it worked at one time because the community rallied together and and and told the zoning administrator this is what we want and so they built regulations around that fast forward 20 30 40 years it's a very different demographic nobody you know that maybe was around when those neighborhood plans were done they've moved on uh maybe interests are different so that that is something on our list of things to do this year that we're going to start hitting the existing neighborhood plans Wells Avenue is probably the first one we're going to tackle we are seeing a lot of infield development in Wells Avenue and so we want to make sure that we're trying to get in front of the curve before these developers come in and just run into these uh these roadblocks so to speak so it's on the list for 20 24 to revisit the Wells Avenue um probably 2025 before we revisit the uh West University neighborhood plan great because I personally think you'll see a lot of progress in revisiting those but I did want to ask to um you brought up change in zoning what are the I know this is a state issue but if you try to increase zoning are they are you are developers going to butt up against that spot zoning issue if they try to jump one parcel from like an MF 21 to an mf30 but there's no other 30s nearby is that still going to be a barrier it is I mean I would say that I don't I don't know that we have a solution with this um Housing Initiative to address that in other words if you've got a neighborhood where everything in it is Zone single family and you have somebody that come in comes in and says I want to rezone this to mf30 um you know would we look at that as spot zoning I would say we would look at each one on a case-by casee basis is it on an R material um you know how is the area built and sometimes we have zoning that doesn't actually match what's been built over the years um so we would look at each one individually and just try and again work with each developer but um I don't have a good answer to say that yep we would allow it I think the anwers we look at each request as it comes in right but maybe there's potential to look at a larger context than just what is adjacent yeah and um we we've had a couple zone changes I would say in the last couple couple years where um we've really took a step back and tried to be I would say more open-minded um as city planners to say again if our goal if city council is prioritizing infill what what can we do to help help that along so looking at zoning is something that we can definitely um help support when those applications come in all right and if you'll entertain just one more question um all of the discussion has been around rental housing for affordability um there are some nice examples in Reno of ownership uh of affordable housing like was that Highland Ranch or Highland Park up kind of off par Boulevard where 40 single family homes were built at an affordable level are we working as a city towards um like reduced entitlement I don't know how you can get away from say a tentative map but like some ways to encourage ownership options um from a zoning code perspective you're right we we cannot get around a tentative map that's a state law requirement so from that perspective every single family development will trigger a tenative map and that does require Planning Commission approval um we we also just don't get a ton of lowincome um subsidized single family development I can think of one we partnered with maybe on the Community Foundation out in um Golden Valley I think they were trying to do 14 units so what the city did was they donated land um you know not something that helped them get to Market faster but definitely made it more affordable for them to do that so we are looking at kind of bigger picture who can we partner with and what can we as a city do to help them um but not so much from a zoning perspective yes maybe with one sort of followup to that and then I'll stop and let all the other Commissioners jump it the letter from the waso county school district then is that an opportunity yes so the letter from the school district they are asking if we can um allow multif family development in public facility zoning I want to kind of backtrack into where this came from so um was County School District they spent about two years going through this new modernization plan where they're coming up with new Concepts right how do they either fix existing schools maybe they're going to tear down some schools what can they do to fill in those spaces after those schools are to torn down so we took a look um just at all of the parcels in Reno that are owned by a school whether it's waso County School District or private school we have about 90 Parcels in the City of Reno that are School owned and of that there's about 38 that are zoned public fac public facility so 38 Parcels Citywide that are owned by a school are zoned public facility we then looked at the modernization plan and there's probably about six schools that they're looking at potentially tearing down and you know kind of reutilizing as something else so so you're you're asking us to change the entire city policy on multif family in public facility Zoning for six Parcels the unintended consequence I will tell you is that public facility zoning is meant for things like schools and churches libraries cour houses fire stations it was never intended for multif family um you know we have public facility zoning it's really a spot zoning because it's a unique zoning but it's in areas like industrial areas and open space areas I don't want to um have multifam in areas that aren't suited for multif family so if you have an industrial area and now we're allowing multifam where there's no sidewalks there's no bus transit there's no access to grocery stores that's an unintended consequence that as a city like that's that's that's more of a burden to us um because we're kind of doing a disservice to low income or even multif family by allowing it in these areas I said the the other concern we have is you know we have a lot of developers that try to look for loopholes and so if they're thinking oh I can't do multif family what if I Zone it to public facility because you don't have to tell us what you're going to build on it at a zone change I'm going to build a church Someone to Zone at public facility and then you sell it and somebody comes in and does multif family in an area that's not appropriate at all for multif family um so I just want to be cautious that while the school district we completely support it's six Parcels that we're talking about right that would be um public facility zoned that potentially you want to use as multif family I do H have another path forward for them um you know if they don't want to pay for the zone change and and go through the process they can ask city council to initiate a zone change and city council will then tell staff to do it so the path forward if they want to do a zone change and not have to pay for it or spend the time in resources is to ask city council to initiate that change and then we do it for them again um that's a a Citywide change policy change to allow multif family and P public facility zoning we have 300 Parcels in the city Zone public facility they they are not ripe or appropriate for multif family we'd have to look at each one on a case-by casee basis so just be careful of those unintended consequences when again we're talking six Parcels that that the school district has uh potentially to use for multi family so no I don't recommend that we do that change all are you good commissioner rer yes thank you all right commissioner villan NOA thank you chair so I'm looking at um one of the revisions it's oh uh P oh there's no page numbers let's just uh looks like it's section A three uh B and we're looking at multif family so this is m14 M uh multif Family 21 30 NC and GC um and are you there okay great and you see the top number one it's been strike through and this is of course what we've been talking about um but I think we've been talking about in the context of um M um affordable this doesn't say affordable it it just says multif family so does this mean any multifam affordable or not affordable would not have to be subject to um the entitlement process that's correct this would be Universal Citywide those zoning categories that you're looking at um we would that's so our multif family zoning our neighborhood commercial our General commercial professional office right now we trigger a minor conditional use permit if they're between 20 and 100 um we're saying delete that and allow multif family development to go by right straight to building permit you still have to meet all our code requirements you're not circumventing building code or zoning code you still have to do all that um but you would not have to go through that public hearing process whenever triggered right because there are certain things that would trigger an um a review process and so um correct I mean that specific to all development regardless of affordability we're saying strike that particular regulation that says less than 100 units right now go through that Min conditional use permit so if you triggered let's say um a conditional use permit for grading you would still have to do that you would still have to come forward for that okay now the other question you brought up was related to affordable housing for affordable housing you would not we're saying you get a you know a pass you you would trigger no entitlements because you're affordable and go straight to a building permit okay and in this case it's not specific to Affordable it's just multif family um so you would not have to oh for okay so it's removing the minor conditional use permit yeah anything over 100 units would still be a conditional use permit so we're not proposing to change that that less than 100 that we're proposing to go back to a building permit by what can you give me in I'm trying to think of one the only one I could think of was like grading and cuts and fills what's another thing that would ultimately trigger review by us um yeah generally the ones that you guys see is the the grading um and that you know cuts and fills um typically that's the big one that you guys see I'm trying to think if there's anything else um I think if you uh major drainage ways would trigger a review if you're you know touching a major drainage way any kind of significant hydrologic resource you don't see a lot of those so regardless then um so just because they don't have to come forward to develop you know their 100 units or 99 units if something like that were to exist a grading issue or something else they would still have to come in front of us corre okay all right so I can I I'm probably going to have other questions but I'm going to pass it as I um look at that thank you commissioner baser thank you um great presentation Angela um uh just want to start off by thanking the school district uh for at least reaching out to explore ideas be to at least try to be part of the solution there um thanks for adding that context Angela as well um um I was curious you know just to kind of level set how many homes are we behind like what what are we trying to catch up to oh I don't have a number you ask Edon and we're you know short five million homes okay you ask um I I I don't know that there is a number that we need um that we're aiming for I will say though like affordability it doesn't matter if it's market rate affordability or you know subsidized affordability I think the um average house in the month of what was it December was $600,000 that's a lot so we have a supply issue we have a cost issue and it's at all levels of of the price range it's not just the low income it is it is every housing price you know kind of range across the board okay and I might I might be able to help you out with that you may not have been here for the uh trucky Meadows Regional report I think it was before he got here okay so waso County I believe if I remember correctly has 91,000 entitlements up that's the entire County wow and then they're projecting by 2030 I believe it was an 8% increase in population um and then notably to your point as a realtor any segment of housing helps alleviate pricing because really it's supply and demand 100% it's what we're seeing uh median home value in December was 565 and we're probably going to go down just a hair again but yeah we we still got pretty dang close to 600 again and you could argue it has almost everything to do with supply and demand and so as people come in Edon presented today the jobs are bringing in uh their salad the average salary has been going up consistently for five years so now you're bringing in folks who are come moving here make more money than the average citizen in town and scooping up properties bringing up prices and really pushing I would argue you know Workforce folks you know maybe to Fernley Dayton Silver Springs and so this type of product I've always been preaching is really healthy for people to stay near their jobs you can make the argument that if you you know you're a plumber and you can't afford to work at your job which is in Reno and you now live in Fernley now you've added two hours of drive time two hours away from your family just so you can have a house at you know is sufficient for their needs so this type of product goes a long way I mean I'm excited about this sorry I'll get off my Soap Box keep going no I no I appreciate it actually thanks for the added context chair much appreciate at um and that kind of teas me up for my next question and and I'm all for this actually it's easy to do nothing out of fear of overthinking right or um just over analysis so so I applaud this uh my line of question is more educational just kind of uh set us up for for what we're aiming for here how will the city monitor the effectiveness of these amendments in specifically in increasing the affordable housing like 2 months from now 4 months from now 2 years from now that's a great question too I think you know this this was a good um lesson for us as staff to go back and look at the last three years and we used three years because that's when our zoning code was updated so we added this density bonus you know things that we hadn't done previously are now in code we said well let's just start a baseline is it making a difference and so we did all the data of you know how many duplexes have we had in the last six or three years and and how many um projects you know were went through a minor conditional use permit that if we change this could go by right and so it was good kind of data gathering for us to look at so I would propose that we kind of on a yearly basis go back and evaluate the data and and see if we're moving the needle and um I think Council will likely ask us to come back on a regular basis and and tell them you know are these changes working or not okay thanks angelin just one more um fale with these changes is what can we what can we expect as Planning Commission moving forward does this in other words should we expect more of something less of certain applications does it free us up to look at other things you know just curious there yeah I mean I think let's just look at the affordable housing projects in three years you guys have looked at five affordable housing projects they triggered some kind of entitlement so if we add a rule that affordable housing projects don't have to go through an entitlement you won't be re reviewing those projects anymore same if we get more duplex Triplex fourplex um you know they can either trigger a conditional use permit which you would see or they can be allowed by right if Mr velto is going to make that proposal so um I think you will be reviewing less applications because what we're proposing is less public review because of the time and the money and the uncertainty um so your meetings might be shorter if if that's what you're looking for oh no but I think separate from that is you know we will we be opening this up to more development that maybe as a just a person living in the city like oh great I was always wondering why that little infill site never got developed well maybe now it pencils for somebody to be able to do it so you know the hope there is that we would get more of these great infill projects that developers aren't doing today for whatever reason this gives them the ability to maybe go to building permit and again they all tell us we can avoid a public hearing that'd be great absolutely and and just wanted one Clarity cuz you gave an example of the 7unit apartment complex during your presentation I want to say they they rolled through us and um they were unfortunately denied at the time but are you saying they benefited from this um so they did use a density bonus as part of the calculation to figure out how many units they can get good okay I'm glad okay problem solved y great discussion sure discussion oh commissioner I was going to say I am also ready for discussion so I will defer for questions commissioner villan NOA you want back in green light green light H the green I can see it's awesome are you kidding me thank you okay uh so I am so we talked we touched on this a little bit but I'm um I'm now looking at this part um section 18.04 .95 it's strike through additional standards for multif family districts it says uh any project requiring a conditional use permit in a multif family District shall have a minimum 20 foot setback so that's being stricken what would what does that mean what what section are you in sorry I spoke quite quickly so 18.04 is that in the density bonus section that you're looking at uh I don't think so it's 5 point page number um 1804 905 so yes it doesn't look like it is am I missing that 1804 905 it's been stricken yes y so this is um one of those that it's kind of a weird little Easter egg so it basically says only if your project requires a conditional use permit do you have this additional setback but only if it requires a conditional use permit that's just seemed ridiculous to us either it's a setback or it's not right if it can go by right it doesn't trigger that additional setback but if it has to go through a public hearing then you have to have a bigger setback I don't really know what the logic was as to why that was even in code it should be H your setback meet it or not not like well if you have to go through an entitlement we're going to give you a bigger requirement for a setback there's just no logic in our mind as to why that was even in code so would the setback still exist you have a setback that B on whatever your zoning district is okay y okay um and that okay so that would remain in place and I should say so this is saying um if you're a conditional use permit if you're if you're triggering a conditional use permit and you're a multif family you need 20 feet from any property line AB budding single family zoning districts um right now most of our multif family zoning districts from a side setback I think are more like five a five foot maybe even seven foot setback so this is basically saying now you have a 20 foot setback again um that is like one of the biggest barriers to infill a 20 foot setback in an infill area from Resident from single family though yep multi family next to single family um what what we also yeah which single family though like that means a big apartment goes up right next to a single family residence um oh sorry I cut you off please continue so code already has additional setback requirements if you are um multif family next to single family so this is something that wasn't also needed because we want to make it Universal not whether it's a cup conditional use permit or not so we have other sections of code that require bigger setbacks if you're multif family next to single family okay so that I can understand clearly if we give this entit if we allow for the entitlement for 99 units up to 99 units there is already a setback for that um correct yep okay what you probably don't know what that is off the top of your head do you so it depends on your zoning District every zoning district has a different setback got it but again if if you're next to single family we have additional setback requirements okay and um so in this case it says with conditional use permit so that would mean anything 100 well depending on the zoning District 100 units or more um and so in that case we're striking this this is not going to apply correct but a restriction will apply it's just going to be consistent across the board Y and honestly I don't even know if half of our staff even knows this is in here it is a weird oneliner that's mixed in the middle of 750 pages that you would have to know it's there to even know it's there okay if that makes me feel so much better knowing that we're getting rid of those hidden Easter eggs make it consistent right okay all right I'm just I have to be cautious because like you said they're bad actors and I saw the original bill ab23 was it AB 213 and that was a terrible Bill originally um and so I just have to be cautious on where people are trying to sneak stuff in um so thank you no further questions that's just one more question please go ahe were there other ideas that you had to increase affordable housing that didn't make it into this that you think specific to affordable housing or just housing in general um as you were putting together these changes were there other ideas you had that you thought would be good that you just chose not to put in yeah I mean we uh we hired a a consultant Shane Phillips he's an author of a book called The affordable city um the City of Reno hired him to look at Reno look at our zoning look at our master plan look at our housing policies and make some recommendations we um had him present to city council and I think the feedback from city council was kind of split you know he he came up with some ideas for instance of right now the the most density you could get from multif family is 30 units per agre so we our multif family zoning is capped at 30 units per acre he was proposing to Citywide double that so add a new zoning category for mf60 right great great concept um I don't know that we were quite ready for something that drastic and so this was kind of our first attempt From staff's perspective our first attempt to let's try something um because doing nothing is is not an option especially in this mandate from the state legislature so what can we do both from an affordability side and from some of this you know missing middle and and smaller things um we feel that these are things that aren't negatively going to impact our residents and that again was in in the back of our mind is we could double what we're proposing but I also just want to slowly incrementally make these changes and if it means we have to come back every year and say C the council here's here's what we've done right here's the housing projects that have moved forward and they may say great do more um but we are just very cognizant of the fact that it is it is tough to make housing reform um on something that I think is still scary for people and so we want to do it in a way that is kind of mindful of looking out for existing you know neighbors um but doing something that really addresses what uh you know AB 213 is asking us to do and then I sorry one more thing so commissioner RAR asked about um and I might be mischaracterizing just when I what I heard about potentially addressing setbacks as part of this what would that look like to reduce the setback requirement for affordable housing um like how would you phrase that I I think um let's go back what we proposed is you know if you're meeting that 60% Ami that's kind of the base for affordability we're saying you you get out of entitlement review you but right now we're not proposing to exempt you from a variance or a deviation right that's something that's above and beyond what code allows I think if you wanted to go an extra step further you could say no this includes deviations and variances meaning you can go taller you can build more stories by right there's no limit on any of that if you meet that affordability requirement specific to setbacks though would it be like I guess the setback is less than 5 10 ft and if if what you're proposing is there's you're exempt from everything so if your setback on your side is 5T you can go up to the property line so I would love that personally I don't know how palatable that might be for so I'm I'm trying to get to a middle ground as a proposal that might be move the needle for more further than maybe as this is presented I think if you're trying to do more I think that the step back is probably not such a big issue uh the height would definitely help developers if they could exceed the height and exceed the number of stories that gives them a lot more flexibility thank you if I may to to your first point did was it ever discussed and I I'm not a fan of following California's policies but I believe the governor eliminated SF zoning was that ever discussed uh no okay not yet just curious that was curiosity I'm not saying do it okay on the record cheer dracul uh commissioner War Meer I know you're virtual do you want to jump in one more time we might slide into discussion here I think oh I'm I'm ready for discussion I uh can I jump in real quick you you uh can I request a five minute break you you may thank you okay five minutes see you at 8:25 27 right all right let's bring it back let's bring it back all right we're going to slide into discussion I believe commissioner VTO yeah this is awesome I'm so excited that you brought this to us um I think this is a really good opportunity for us to actually make a difference in the zoning code it is not often that we are given the opportunity to amend the zoning code to actually increase housing and especially increase affordable housing um because of that I would be supportive of two different amendments to this code uh in addition to what is proposed the first would be to add an entitlement for height deviation by right uh for two additional stories if the project meets the affordable housing requirement and the second would be to allow by right duplexes triplexes and quad plexes in sf3 sf5 sf8 and sf11 I'm very concerned with the language that was proposed that requires a cup because I don't see those getting built in a majority of what is marked as yellow and if we're acknowledging that these are good and that we should be building them I think that that should be by right so um those are two things I would request if you all have other ideas to kind of expand these options I'd also be very interested in hearing them but those are two things that I think are really important if we're actually trying to make a difference and improve affordable housing thank you for that I'm on your page Angela if you don't mind where does this go next because of twoe point I'm I like it uh I just feel like maybe the SF 35 8 and 11 maybe deserves a little bit more public awareness and maybe public discussion around that I I could see how all of this probably deserves that but that one deserves it probably a bit so where does this go next and how will the public know because this because this is a recommendation to city council The Next Step would be a city council first reading we actually have to go to City Council twice uh we are looking to go in March and April for first and second reading and then Council to the state nope then we are done this is just a zoning code so this is we have full jurisdiction over these things and so when you were saying earlier that you were worried about adding certain things in here because of the potential of it being passed is that specifically about how the council will look at it um my concern that maybe we're going too far more of that comment yeah I mean again we our our goal here is to get something that yeah Council will support okay which means the community has to support it so I just wanted to make sure that we provided uh something that's making an effort to move it um but not something that's again doubling density like again some of the recommendations from Mr Shane Phillips report so this this again was kind of our Middle Ground of I think we can get to a yes I think our Council can get to a yes on these initiatives but I am more than happy to bring something um forward that is is as you have recommended and the one point I'll say on that is I I'd rather ask for too much from Council and have Council make changes than ask for too little and have Council still make changes there's going to be public comment in people that are opposed to this at the council meeting if we give them more things to potentially deal while I hope that they don't deal any of these and that these actually get put into code that gives them more leverage to make concessions in the event that there is a lot of public backlash I'm willing to support a motion with those additions as long as it's going to council and has public discussion awareness so I'm with you maybe it gets done hopefully you know there's a robust conversation with more of our leaders and uh citizens so anyway I'll stop there commissioner can we have two separate motions can we have two separate motions I think staff spent a lot of time on this and they had three separate stakeholder meetings and I know they've been working on this for a while and so um we can try two separate motions I think I'd be in support of moving this forward as is um just because I sat in on the stakeholder meetings I saw that I saw what they I read through this um and you know I think that would be appropriate at this stage um Council you can have a conversation with Council and propose those changes to them on you know personally um you can also attend those meetings personally and and share that with them if they want to add that at that meeting if it doesn't get approved here there's this is not the end um but I think you know from what was presented we two two motions one as is and then one with the additions that uh which proposed by commissioner velto depending on if one gets passed or not can we even do that I guess that's new to me all this is Jasmine M with the city attorney's office no you would have one motion on the table Yeah if it passes um whether it's as is or with the amendment um then you would be done if it doesn't pass then you could make a a new motion and and to your point I think what commissioner velto saying is what's give it to the council formally then kind of hit it meeting my criteria is that's going to be in a staff report and it'll be essentially public and then if they want to have that conversation to pull it off they can instead of not approving those changes and then bringing them up the day of the meeting I think would would take away the public discussion about it yeah I mean it's a very sensitive button the uh conversation can always happen but my concern with that is sort of what staff mentioned too much too soon also I mean going back to the vision on what we foresee I'm very much in support of affordable housing I'm very much in support of a multif family over single family um but at the same time we you know a lot of folks live in this region because the aesthetic beauty of it and if we just let you know them run rampid um in all of the areas listed above it could cause issues with some of the um aesthetic um nature that comes with living in the city of re know um and so I you know I'd be happy to make a motion now to move forward with um with this as submitted um and then if that fails you guys can make a separate motion um and then see if that is uh approved let's get the temperature going with the discussion we we'll just we'll go to commissioner RoR Meer feel free to jump and then I'll swing back to the rest of y'all here great um I squarely am in support of commissioner VTO amendments if it were up to me personally I would go much farther I think it is time to recognize that the City of Reno is a desirable City people are moving here people jobs are good the housing Supply is too few and too expensive and we need to do everything we can me personally as a planning commissioner that was one of the reasons I wanted to be on this board to address this issue um I would entertain multif family 45 I would entertain zero parking requirements for affordable housing I would entertain uh no major minor deviations for setbacks and step back requirements and driveway setbacks off Alleyways and there are a lot of little things in code that I think can achieve quite a lot that density bonuses strive for but can't actually Implement so I'm game for as far as we can go with this board Count Me In okay commissioner Basera ditto um I think uh my fellow Commissioners um uh said it very poly and I would stand right behind them and alongside them with those changes going to as far as we can to um put something forward that if city council felt more reserved about they can scale back but if they also felt like they have the appetite for uh it would be it would make uh drastic changes sooner rather than later commissioner Armstrong thank you uh I just would like to commend City staff for bringing this to us to velto to commissioner vel's point it's very rare that we actually get to have an impact like this so it's not lost on me I think that what you've proposed is very much in alignment with what I've heard and what I understand about development I think you've made change changes that will make it a lot easier for these projects to pencil and hopefully make them more attractive so we see more of them um just increasing the amount of units just from an economic perspective I think will have a major impact that at present probably deters a lot of developers especially those that are less sophisticated they don't have the administrative ability to go through kind of a formal process like this so I very much support that I'd also be supportive of the Amendments that that um commissioner velto put forward I would rather formally provide the city council with something you know as robust as we can within reason um they can make those changes but I like the public process the input I like that there are two readings that gives folks a lot of time to to opine on it so I will be in support of uh this is presented with with the two amendments thank you commissioner Muno if comment at all uh yeah commissioner M is for the record um this is something that that Ward for and something that I can see having a huge impact up there I can see it having less of an impact uh down South Reno uh less of an impact in Verdi and so I'm hesitant with adding anything extra um I've I've from the the time I've got here uh until the time I will leave I've always pushed um development up in that area um away from housing right now and I believe there's a time and a place for it but I've always pushed that away because I believe the uh the amenities and the uh infrastructure up there is not suitable for this it is just not it's not sustainable I believe it will get there and I believe it is getting there um there is some some things in the work up that there in in the works that uh are slowly making life a little more bearable um traffic has always been a huge one and anything that makes affordable housing come in a lot quicker right now is not a good option for the North Valleys this is and I can see all the work that staff did um this this seems like what they have proposed the way had they proposed it is what fits right now will this be enough in 6 months probably not the way we're growing the way things are changing probably not it's going to be uh something like Angela said it's going to be Revisited uh each year it's going to have to be Revisited and revised um in order to continue to work so I do understand uh where commissioner valto is coming from um I do agree with most of that for most of the city but not for Ward four which is where I'm representing so um as it is proposed now is how I'll be voting uh with the Amendments that are um potentially going to be brought fourth I will be voting on those that's that's where I stand right now thank you commissioner VTO um so commission Muno I hear what you're saying I want there to be a lot of more commercial a lot of more infrastructure in your ward I I guess I would hope that by making it more affordable to develop developers might be more interested in developing in the inner core of Reno and an areas that they aren't able to develop in because it's not it doesn't pencil out because the property might be more expensive there might be smaller lots and I think by encouraging these changes you might see a a shift towards a different area of town I don't know that to be true that's just a thought I have um and I hear what you're saying I I think though it's you know I got on the Planning Commission to try to increase affordable housing because when I got on I couldn't afford to buy a house I my rent was through the roof and that's been a huge focus of mine since I got on the commission so I respect where you're coming from I just think that maybe it's because of where I live and it's not as close to me as where you live I might have a different perspective on it um the second point I want to address is commissioner roar's um I'm in agreement with you I I want to push the needle as far as possible I just want to see if it's palatable for the commission um some of the things you mentioned were allowing multif family 45 and then you said some other things I didn't fully understand um so you know if if you were to say if you could pitch maybe one or two of those to the rest of the commission so that we might maybe better understand it I understand you have a very unique skill set and experience that gives you an understanding of this at a much higher level than myself so maybe if you could identify some of those and help me understand and help us understand why we those might want to be included sure no I appreciate the discussion very much and I understand that we have a spectrum of ideas here and opinions based on our own experiences and I fully respect that as part of the process um things like some of the tech specific items I were trying to address really Target just two areas in the urban core and that is Wells Avenue neighborhood and the University West University neighborhood because they have such strict neighborhood character um plans they restrict the ability to build even if you have an incredible density bonus and that you could build unlimited second and third stories have to be pushed back so that they have added setbacks which make the amount of building foot print on those stories very very small so even if you can go up you're now being constricted so that is one way to kill density the other way is on ground floor parking um you know there's it'd be wonderful if every developer could afford subterranean in parking garages um but that's not realistic so parking becomes a surface nightmare it eats up a lot of land so those are two ways maximizing the airspace maximizing the ground Space by getting rid of parking that you can increase the ability to build out a lot so by getting rid of minor and major deviations um in those multif family developments you're allowing for code to be varied without having to go through a variance to come before us to ask for a caseby casee review so those are some additional ways in addition to going one or two stories taller that could help U there are also some very minor things that could just be addressed in a code Cleanup in the future there's a silly requirement about 20 foot parking driveways and things like that but specifically the major and the minor deviation around parking and step backs which are different than setbacks but sound very similar um are two additional amendments we might consider and I recognize that maybe the City of Reno isn't ready for MF 45 U but I certainly am when the time comes thank you can I ask a question you may if I could just get clarification so sounds like what a proposed amendment would be would be amendment to remove minor and major deviation setback requirements on affordable housing developments and then remove minor and major deviation parking requirements on affordable housing projects is that a fair way of stating it I don't even think regarding parking you can just say remove parking requirements for affordable housing I don't think it even needs to be a major minor devation you could just remove parking requirements and developers will still put parking spaces because they recognize the need fiscally to have a few spaces but the developers that do affordable housing know the parking standards very well um and they definitely try to C by transit which again serves the core and recognizes that the core is the most valuable land for affordable housing um not so much in the north and south peripheries and so I believe very strongly that getting rid of a parking requirement would save a lot of headaches for both developers and the city just for affordable housing I'm not this is not a market rate offer could we gauge the climate of the rest of the Commissioners on on those ideas commissioner baser please sure um I I I like it and I also hear um commissioner munes and his concerns I'm almost wondering since it sounds like we're all in an alignment that this is something that we're going to have to iterate on uh year after year for a little while or every six months I'm wondering if the amendment could be further amended to maybe run as a pilot where those amendments um would be within like a certain Corridor like the McCarron Loop or something uh to really gauge how things go before opening up the floodgates and then uh that that prevents um these amendments to leak out into W four and other areas and uh we can all assess how things are going after 6 months or a year and so forth and who knows maybe it's going wonderful and uh commissioner munus is like let's go or maybe it's like no let's let's keep keep things a little tight right so I'm for it and I just wanted to throw that kind of suggestion out there as a as a something to consider for folks chair please go ahead may I just want to make it clear I generally agree with commissioner VTO and commissioner rer my concern though is again just doing too much too quickly and I mean I'm very much in support of limiting parking more walkability all of those things but the problem is I mean I I really like the suggestion I didn't even think about it earlier but can we just limit it to you know do we have to do it to to the entire city do we have have to make it available to the entire city can we just limit it to certain districts and certain corridors if we're going to really push the needle we don't need to push the needle across the entire city um and so generally speaking yes I'm in favor of those things overall but is now the right time I would again i' I'd you know be more aligned with uh what what commissioner Basera said if we can really limit it um but I would certainly not be in favor of just pushing the needle all the way right now um so if we are going to make a motion I'd encourage that we either have a motion first approving as is or in altern in the alternative a motion um with the suggestion from uh commissioner Basera um and then if that fails we can have the second motion as suggested by commissioner VTO and commissioner rer let's keep the conversation going based on the line from rer but I hear you and we'll address that in a minute commissioner mun knows looks like you want to chime in uh yeah so if if that is a possibility if there is a corridor or an area that we can push the needle and get a test program or or a a year or 6 months of let's see how this goes then I would be all for all of those um so from a reality nothing will be built in six months or even a year right it takes affordable housing projects generally have a two-year cycle from the time they start asking for money from the state to the time they actually get the money till the time they submit a building permit and then it starts building so we won't see any of this come to fruition till you adopt it and then they hit their next round of development I mean it's can be probably three to four years before you see something built with the standards again it takes forever to do development especially with affordable housing where there's money tied and you have to get the money first yep understood and it'd be weird to put that into code as like a we I wouldn't recommend that I don't even know that that's legal Fair one more comment um just a quick additional comment um uh regarding the um I mean regarding the setbacks step backs um deviations all of those things it's we're not stopping that from happening they can always come forward we're just this is with respect to entitlements for affordable housing um and so that's all we're doing they can still come back they can still get the deviation it's just yes it's an additional hurdle um but I think again if we just limit that again I'm in favor of those things generally speaking um and I think we can get there I just don't know that we need to do that right now um and so I think we will get there eventually and hoping that we get there um but again in time and you know process there's a process um and when you know infrastructure is a big deal um and so we also need to take that into consideration so thank you uh smallest side with our new technology um whenever you're done speaking mic off we're getting Echo I'm I'm the most guilty here on that so just a small side uh that's a commissioner Armstrong feel free if you have some points to make we've kind of heard from everybody we'll keep it going but I would generally be in favor of pushing the needle so to the extent that there's a motion for I guess it's four amendments now or three I think it's four I'd be ready to make a motion we could see how it goes my impression was it was commissioner w requests to make a motion to pass the original it as proposed if that motion wants to go first I will be voting against it to make a subsequent motion but I defer to the chair as to how the chair would like to yeah concur new stuff um I guess I would like to see the aggressive uh motions first and work our way down down that would be my choice open to discussion about that this is just kind of a new kind of strategy um that's my opinion at the moment okay thought I sure I'm gonna kind of go back to what I proposed I'm I I'm not entirely clear as to why it's not doable to have a sort of ab test where um outside of a corridor again I'm just thinking outside of the McCaron Loop that's something that we maybe all have familiarity with outside the McCaron loop it's the it's the motion that's on the floor now right it's like this is what we're doing but within the McCaron loop as as a B test we would have the more aggressive version right it doesn't it doesn't mean we're not doing anything anywhere it just means that in a certain location we're going to test test pilot a different version that's a little bit more aggressive and then in the outer areas what's being proposed tonight is still there but it's a bit more conservative um I would you be able to help me understand why that's not doable your mic on okay sorry so um yeah I don't want you to put a time limit on this this practice trial run sure this is code we adopt it until it's readed again okay if you want to allow affordable housing with those added you know deviations by right to a certain area you absolutely can do that goodness um because I I I do agree we should do something uh and we we need to do it you know yesterday um and I do want to be mindful that uh certain areas may not be um just yet ready uh as in W for perhaps um and I just think that uh an AB type test uh in my world I guess that's what we would call it um is totally doable like a um a staggered roll out and then that way we have two data points to to assess uh what's working what's not and maybe there's another option down the road and that's what I would put forth for the rest of my Commissioners to consider is uh an alternative to the amendment which is um the original the original motion and within a certain Corridor and I'm just willy-nilly throwing out McCaron Loop because that's what I know uh but we can adjust it to whatever everyone else might be more comfortable with uh we do a more aggressive approach which I would be in favor commissioner valto uh commissioner berer I hear what you're saying I think my my concern with that proposal is that there's a there's already a finite amount of land in Reno and I don't I think we're kind of too late to do a test case there is so many people moving into the town There's so people that need access to housing if we draw Geographic boundaries that excludes land that can be developed we're putting we're handicapping our ability to really maximize the benefits of providing for affordable housing and if we were to put in code say only in the McCarron loop we're excluding a large portion of land that could be developed and could become affordable housing and we're doing it in areas that are um more traditionally expensive real estate which is already going to make it more difficult for developers to build on so I don't want to if our goal is to increase affordable housing I want to do that at all costs and that's I don't like capping Us in an area with the hope that we'll see this as effective five or six years down the road when if it's effective five or six years down the road we've lost out on a bunch of housing that could have reduced the cost of people who are can't afford rent having to move in with their parents because they can't afford rent any longer you know when I'm weighing these values that's where I see is that we need to prioritize affordable housing sure I think I think a map by be more helpful and and I totally hear what you're saying um Angela would you mind bringing up that map with the two colors I think there we go like what I'm proposing what I'm proposing is saying let's do something right as a baseline across the board we would do the motion that's on the table right if we if if you're saying that even if we did that it wouldn't be successful um then that motion should be DOA right like we shouldn't even be considering it but I think we all agree that we should be doing something so outside of a certain Corridor like let's just to say McCaron Loop we would do the motion that's on the floor as presented but within the McCaron Loop we would do the more aggressive approach so I'm not saying we wouldn't do anything I'm just saying that as a balanced approach we would do what's being presented this evening by staff uh outside you know in the kind of more uh outskirts of town and within a certain area like the McCaron Loop we would do something more aggressive so I just want to be clear that we would be doing something commissioner dracul I'm not in love with that still um and to help and we'll keep the discussion going what I'd like to see in my reasoning for it is I think we all if we all don't like anything that's on the table but we like just as is I feel like we're all a consensus that would take that so I feel like that's our Baseline and I feel like we're going to kind of walk down so personally I would like to see the aggressive approach like I stated first as a motion see how that lays out if not not I would like to see back to commissioner vel's original two additions see how that works and if not I think we can all agree that we should have some progress tonight send something up to the council and go as is so that's just my brain into the mic right now just for your guys' uh processing but feel free commissioner Villa thank you chair just two points and I will try and be brief um to commissioner vel's point it we're not eliminating that option the option still available to develop for example outside that McCaron Loop they just have to come and get the variance for that one of the other things that i' I've been thinking about is if we start within the McCarron Loop then we can really kind of exploit all opportunity of infill even though it's more expensive these are affordable housing that allow for some diversity you know because my concern would be we're pushing all the affordable outside of the McCarron Loop and then resulting in uh you know some form of desegregation I I just don't unintentional um unintentionally because you said it yourself it's more expensive to develop and a lot of it's going to end up getting pushed out and so I don't want all the affordable housing getting sent to the outskirts I would like to start seeing us develop from the inside out that's kind of you know what I would like to see so yes absolutely I'm all about affordable housing but let's do it an appropriate way commissioner AR I like the approach that you laid out where we start kind of at the upper bound and see how we go and if we end up at Baseline we end up at Baseline I think everyone is in favor of Baseline um so I would be in favor of that approach and ready for for a motion can I ask a clarifying question before making a motion is this four or five votes to make the recommendation um this one I believe believe is four votes thank you uh with that chair I'd be ready to make a motion okay please do in the matter of case number text 24- 0000001 based upon compliance with applicable findings I move to recommend the city council approve the text amendment by ordinance with four amendments First Amendment to section 18.04.1 153 uh incentives for affordable housing to add an entitlement for a height Dev ation by right allowing a project to build two additional stories to a building if the project um complies with the affordability requirements second an amendment to allow by WR duplexes triplexes and quad plexes and sf3 sf5 sf8 and sf1 third an amendment to remove minor and major deviation setback requirements on afford affordable housing developments and fourth to remove parking requirements for affordable housing projects and fifth if we could also include revisions to the density bonus calculations just because I did the math wrong and thank you and fifth including the revisions to density bonus calculations as recommended by staff thank you okay we will do have a motion I'll look for a second and we will have discussion so I need a second commissioner Armstrong I'll second okay we have a motion and a second uh discussion I I'll actually kick that off of if you don't mind so commissioner vel's first approach felt good felt right commissioner Ro Meer very persuasive uh aggressive I like it I'm a little concerned and the only thing that is going to get me to a yes on this is we are kicking it up to the council we are opening up to public discussion um I do trust our leaders and the representatives in each Ward you know to to make their case and uh I'll be in support of it moving forward any more discussion go ahead commissioner B great um I'll likely be in support of how it's being presented I think my only ask and maybe it's a question for for Angela is um if this moves forward would you be able to just present to council the the various discussion and different options we explored just so they have context because it might be things that they consider during the first and second reading and so forth right because they might want to make different changes themselves absolutely we also include the Planning Commission meeting minutes yeah perfect and and with that emphasizing um commissioner Basera and commissioner munoz's concerns for a potential carve out that may affect commissioner mun's word for uh concerns as well as commissioner maser's yeah we can highlight that in our staff report to council great great with that on board okay Motion in a second more discussion if not I will go to a roll call vote commissioner roor Meer any discussion no discussion okay all right Michelle let's do a roll call please draulic yes Armstrong yes asera yes Munos no rer yes VTO yes fan NOA no okay the vote is 5 to2 motion passes okay uh congratul rations Angela all right thank you all for the great conversation there yeah many great oh I should get back to my agenda here all right that was the end of item five thank you all let's move to item six trucky Meadows Regional planning liaison report none tonight excellent news close uh close item six open item seven staff announcement ments yeah just a couple quick announcements uh once again for the record Mike Ry um we will not be having a second meeting this month our second meeting in February is going to be canceled um that's largely just due to what we see normally in the the holiday slowdown in terms of intakes um however with that said we will have a fairly full agenda on March 6 just based on on our January intakes so just to kind of keep you in the loop on that um in terms of of projects that you've reviewed um the Heiser specific plan District that you approved in January that was upheld by the city council with the only change as you recall we had a lot of discussion on the parks on that one um they will be required to pay the park tax that was put back into the SPD so that that goes actually back for a second reading at Council next week and uh with that I don't have any further announcements great thank you closing item seven item eight commissioner suggestions for future agenda items and we do not need to add in talks about affordable housing to the next anyway any suggestions seeing none close item eight item nine public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment Michelle I did not receive any correspondence no voicemails no request to speak forms and no one on Zoom seeing no one in these Chambers I will close item number nine public comment we'll move to item number 10 for adjournment I oh yeah second wait wait wait wait stop wait hold on we do have somebody else that is on Zoom for public comment so public comment we reopen item nine public comment yeah I guess is she on Donna are you there yes hi for the record my name is Donna Keat um that happens all the time at the end people don't get to make their uncommon comments just so you know I just want to say that was one of the most um odd things I've ever heard with your 95 different permutations of things that you just went through on the housing and I'd like to point out that um the one component there several components I think you're missing one public participation process Angela and her crew went through a tremendous amount of effort of of time and effort to try to make sure that as many people of members of the public that could be engaged were engaged they presented cup requirements for multiplexing in single families I'd like to know where you guys live because if you lived in the old part of town you might have different feelings about some of what you're saying also comes to my mind that some of you are not considering the constituents that ostensibly you're supposed to represent I heard a lot of I want to see this I want to see that I didn't hear what I used to hear like my constituents seem to feel that or anything like that I'm wondering what would voice you're speaking from and apparently none of you tuned in to the housing meetings that Council had and the presentation that Angela and her staff have done before at other meetings and saw how this came about about these particular items being pulled out of code cleanup and how they landed on this and the push back they got from members of council just about some of these really simple things and she's trying to say hey man you know we can make this fly right in front of council we have till July to do it and now you've created this incredibly complicated mess which is unlikely to go through the way it is based on if you had watched any of the council meetings or participated so I'm a little disappointed that for something this weighty the very first time you guys are logging on on the matter is right now when they really need a vote to happen they've smoothed it out they made it palatable they had 135 people Express their opinions which don't include mine and I've got a ton of them at every single meeting and the NAB presentations that they did so the public process is just ping gone right because everything you're proposing has nothing to do with what was at any of the public presentations or the NAB meetings or anything else it's a total takeoff from that 100% difference so you know I don't know I guess I got to make a lot of comments to council about public process that is now not happening on any of these housing things you mixed up apples and oranges you know by doing this I think you have great ideas I don't OB to your ideas but this process is a problem and I think you should give some consideration to that and if you really want to L in on housing things maybe you should take some more of your I know you don't get paid very much for your job and I appreciate your service but a lot of stuff has happened that it seems as though you're all almost all of you are totally unaware of about what happened except for a couple of you who obviously know the background story but some of you really it's like whoa left field this is the first time UPF front so I'm sorry if that sounded weird but it was very painful to listen to and I've participated in this stuff a lot and I'm really disappointed that you couldn't just give a clean go on this and let's start getting somewhere because now we're going to have to do all the discussions again thank you for your time Miss keiths we appreciate you yeah thank you you have a great night all right any more zoom voicemail anything over there all right no also still seeing no one in the chambers we will close item number nine public comment move to item number 10 make a motion to close all right we got a motion all in favor I thank y'all I don't think I've ever heard her she hasn't called you yet well no give your number oh shoot you know what I haven't checked my voice phone so Commissioners if you're having problems with logging in excuse me Commissioners if you're having problems logging in stay if you're not having problems logging into the system then you can go