reno city planning commission uh meeting for wednesday august 3rd 2022. we'll start with the pledge of allegiance uh commissioner taylor will you lead us in the pledge great thank you michelle can we get a roll call yes just one moment jd draculich here peter gower yeah mark johnson here arthur munoz here kathleen taylor here sylvia villanueva's absent alex felto here we have a quorum great thank you uh we'll now move on to open up public comments this item is for public comment on any action item or for any item of uh general public comment do we have any requests to speak forms we did not receive any request oh wait let me read my thing first and then we'll start that part okay it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendas for possible action on today's agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes if you are an attendee in the zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time please raise your hand lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues so with that we did receive correspondence that was general in nature not specific to any items on this agenda we did not receive any voicemails and i do not believe we received any request to speak forms and i'm looking on the zoom meeting to see if anybody has their hand raised hang on just a second and it doesn't appear anybody is raising their hand to speak during public comments so uh would anyone the public like to speak on a general item seeing none we'll close public comment uh move on to public hearings uh item 4.1 has been pulled so we'll move to item 4.2 which is and we'll open up the public hearing for ldc22-00085 mountain u.s states unit five zoning map amendment race we've a presentation yes and the applicant is here for questions if necessary just wait one moment so all right good evening mr chair commissioners grace whited associate planner for the record here to discuss the mountain view estates unit 5 zoning map amendment so the subject site is located in north reno south of par boulevard in between north virginia street and us 395 just south of the railroad the applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment from single family 11 units per acre to multi-family 14 units per acre to the south of the site is all residential zoning mostly attached and detached single-family to the north of the site is industrial and more intense uses if this zone change were to be approved this site would serve as a transition from the lower intensity residential to the south and east of the property to the higher intensity industrial and railroad to the north and west so the master plan for this site is mixed neighborhood which supports single-family and small multi-family projects this change from sf-11 to mf-14 would support a higher density single-family or a small multi-family development so here is the comparison of development standards allowed in single-family 11 units per acre and multi-family 14 units per acre density is probably the biggest change between the two zoning districts sf-11 allows for 11 units per acre and mf14 allows for 14 units per acre this would yield a total of 466 units oops sorry i skipped ahead and that's about 100 unit difference between sf-11 and mf-14 any future land division of four or more lots multi-family development greater than 20 units will trigger a discretionary review process through which additional site-specific standards may be applied here are the findings for a zoning map amendment this zoning map amendment does not conflict with state law and it still conforms to our master plan in conclusion staff recommends approval of the zoning map amendment the motion is on your screen and i'm available for questions great thank you do we have a presentation from the applicant good afternoon chairman valto commissioners john crompot grace said i'm here for questions so uh if i could have the powerpoint there's actually one slide i wanted to share with the commission um i'm representing mve5 rob fitzgerald he's the home builder that's done all the prior phases of that whole top of the hill so i just wanted to point out on this map actually two maps see mve one two three and four that's all been done by this applicant northern nevada homes rob fitzgerald he's in his final phase of that area he's talking about a product change that's what's driving this zone change the flexibility to do two or three or four unit attached multi-family is what he has in mind um i you know agree entirely with staff on the mixed neighborhood policy basis for this change that's that's germane to uh the zone change also staff makes the case about the land use compatibility so i'm not going to be redone in here if i could go to the slide on circulation michelle oh i guess i'm controlling this right important to the community up there for the last 10 years we've been doing things and i just wanted to share this with the commission many of you know about this but the key is that we have good access to ferrari mcleod and up to park boulevard to the north this network that's been approved you see we have it tagged as the newly approved road alignment that was done with staff administratively to have a nice clean connection to that existing mve4 and then south we have the network programmed and that collector street that wraps around to the south and then all the way to comstock road that's all i have for you this evening thank you i'm here for any questions thanks john thank you mr fitzgerald's here as well if he wanted to get into product stuff i know that's not typically part of zone change discussion but certainly it would be part of it sure thank you okay we'll come back to the commission for disclosures mr gower thank you mr chairman no disclosures uh commissioner munoz i spoke with the applicant's representative and i'm familiar with the area commissioner draculich i'm familiar with the site commissioner taylor no disclosures commissioner johnson no disclosures uh commissioner valto spoke with the applicant's representative and familiar with the site um we'll now move on to public comment do we have any requests to speak forms i did not receive request to speak forms no emails were or voicemails were received on this item great thank you uh anybody in the public like to speak on public comments seeing none we'll close public comment and come back to the commission for questions or discussion or a motion mr chair commissioner johnson i have a comment and then a discussion item i just want to comment on the findings in the one that i'm looking at and i'll be looking at this a couple times tonight is our master plan conformance finding and i do want to point out i very much agree with the way this was presented the policies talking about specifically the type of housing options and the diversity of those housing options and how this is sort of giving another option in that area for a different kind of product as the applicant suggested so i want to um you know i i do want to point out specifically that i can definitely make that finding as a result of how that's been presented this evening so with that if there's no additional discussion mr chair i will make a motion uh mr chair if i phone real quick um actually i am a little bit uh curious on what the product is if you could just give us a real quick rundown since we're already moving due rob fitzgerald uh yeah the point in the zone change was to be able to get some diversity and product type and even though it's a jump in density in terms numerically it's going to allow us to do more one and two bedroom type product we're thinking of doing them in small three and four plex type buildings that'll visually be very compatible with what's going on up there right now and that we've been building and just give us some diversity and product that i think really is needed up there and um you know i'd like to point out that you know this this is adjacent to an employment center which is the tmcc and we look to that the sheriff's office workforce housing in general a lot of it is missing and this location really gives us the ability to serve the north valleys as well and that's really kind of a primary target there's so much development commercially up there the housing could be used thank you thank you thank you very much nothing else okay great thank you commissioner johnson do we bought a question thank you mr chair in the case of ldc22-00085 mountain view estates unit five zoning map amendment based upon compliance with the applicable findings i move to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance and i can make all the findings no motion we have a second mr gauran a second hey all those in favor all right uh the motion carries unanimously uh thanks so much good luck with your project thank you we'll now move to item 4.3 which is case number ldc22-00083 keystone commons pad f drive through drive through ac is this your project you ready we have a presentation on the applicant i apologize i didn't know who was going first [Laughter] keyboard or the remote we'll get it up in just a second okay is it gonna be this michelle or the keyboard okay there we go got it all right good evening stacy huggins with wood rodgers for the record uh representing uh the applicant on behalf of the applicant s3 keystone retail um just a little bit of background on the location of this project i'm sure several of you are familiar with this area the project site is located on the northwest corner of west fifth and keystone uh it used to be where the old queue and cushion used to be if you're familiar with that area there's an existing wendy's that still sits on this um general corner that's not part of this project so that ariel that you see there represents the site as it's developed most recently that picture was taken in june i believe so you can see what exists on the site now um the project site is highlighted in blue on the bottom portion of the aerial image the parcel was previously zoned drcc keystone which under that zoning permitted drive-throughs as an exhaust as an accessory to restaurants so most of the fast food restaurants on this site were not reviewed at planning commission under that previous zoning the new zoning mixed-use downtown northwest quadrant allows restaurants but requires a cup for the drive-through which is why we are here tonight so looking at the original layout of this project again this was a commercial center focused on providing a mix of commercial uses retail restaurant office and some residential on the eastern side the original design contemplated forty eight thousand square feet of commercial uses with approximately eleven thousand square feet consisting of fast food with the drive-throughs which you can see on the site plan identified throughout pad f which is the main focus of our discussion tonight was previously planned with a 14 000 square foot building it had been intended to be a two-story building with ground floor retail and then second story restaurant something like a nicer restaurant with an outdoor patio so since that original plan was contemplated some things have changed there's been less demand for retail in the area maybe as a result of covid there's been an increased demand for fast casual restaurants and so the developer has changed their approach and they're coming forward now with us much smaller project on pad f that will consist of that fast casual restaurant catering more to a drive-through or short-term type pickup for restaurant uses so pad f is now approximately 4 000 square feet it brings the overall center to approximately 45 000 square feet as opposed to 48 which also by default has a significant reduction to the overall trip generation which has um been uh something that was discussed early on and when the project was originally brought forward so looking specifically at the project tonight again the request for a drive through associated with the building pad f the drive-through lanes and the window have been located on the north side of the building where they're screened from the public view you can see that with the window on the north we're able to provide on the south side of the building pedestrian access and amenities in the form of seating areas which is consistent with the starbucks that exists there directly to the west the drive through lanes there are two of them that converge into one they are designed to accommodate six vehicles per lane plus two when they converge together it's approximately 330 feet of stacking which ensures that the stacking of those vehicles stays within the project site and does not spill out onto the public streets excuse me uh the again the drive through on the north side of the building is consistent with the mixed use standards for building orientation and street frontage with that pedestrian amenity and access on the south side at 5th street the public seating areas will be improved with decorative hardscape consistent with the existing public areas in the general overall center the project also provides pedestrian access in and around the site via existing sidewalks with direct access from fifth street and i could go back and show you that aerial from the very first slide where you would see all of the existing sidewalks are in place currently including an ada ramp that comes up from 5th street to the access in between the starbucks and pad f also all of any new sidewalks or paths that are in within this parking area that would cross through the drive isles or the drive through lanes are planned um to be changing color or material so that they're very obvious that they are crosswalks so that between the pedestrians and the vehicles it's very clear that you are crossing um in front of one or the other um that concludes my presentation we've read the staff report we agree with all the conditions um i'm here to answer any questions if you have them great thank you so much presentation from staff hello and good evening members of the commission chairman for the record my name is leah brock assistant planner with development services in the city of reno this evening i am presenting the application for the drive through food service facility on pad f for the development known as the keystone commons i'll try not to reiterate everything that stacy just went over and just hit some of the highlights here so the applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow for a drive-through facility as an accessory used to the primary use as a restaurant the site is located on the southeast corner of a 1.6 acre parcel on the edge of the mixed use downtown northwest quadrant district key issues related to this request include general site design and traffic access and circulation the subject parcel is located in that mixed-use downtown northwest quadrant uses surrounding the site include four existing drive-through facilities there is a wendy's on the parcel to the east which is not located on the subject parcel but within the subject parcel there is an in-n-out burger and a chipotle and a starbucks so there are three existing drive-throughs on that parcel across fifth street to the south is an automotive parts store and a car wash and other businesses within keystone commons plaza to the north are restaurants and services as conditioned the proposed drive-through facility does appear to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding development the subject site is located on the western edge of the master planned land use designation of downtown mixed juice the downtown mixed juice is intended to include a diverse mix of employment including restaurants and services to support the workforce the proposed drive-through food service facility does conform to the characteristics of the designation as outlined in the master plan and as proposed and with the recommended conditions the project is in conformance with the master planned land use designation and the applicable master plan goals and policies such as community development urban revitalization neighborhood services walkable centers and a mix of uses the overall site design is comprised of a 3950 square foot restaurant as stacy discussed there are stacking lanes two lanes that merge into one reno municipal code does require 140 feet of stacking lanes in this case the application exceeds that by more than double offering 330 feet of stacking lanes also per rmc 1717 trees would be required to be planted on site the application has proposed 22 trees and we have added that as condition number five regarding traffic access and circulation as stacy said there was a 2019 master traffic study before the project was developed for the proposed project vehicles will enter the drive-through lane from either the existing paved dry vial that runs through the approximate center of the parcel or they can come off of fifth street up that private drive between the wendy's and the pad f exit would be the same thing the only thing i want to point out is if they do go through the center of the parcel out the drive onto keystone avenue that is a right only whereas if they come off onto fifth street they can turn either direction prior to the development on the site again that master traffic study was prepared in 2019 staff has determined that the proposed project is smaller in scope than the uses that were assumed in february of 2019 and will slightly reduce the traffic volumes that were previously identified in that study per the design standards outlined in renown municipal code and the reno master plan the building has been oriented toward 5th street with pedestrian amenities fronting 5th street including a patio with tables and chairs ada accessible pedestrian routes to the building will be provided from the existing sidewalk off of fifth street ada accessible pedestrian crossings are proposed in two locations across the drive-through which you can see circled in red on the screen above to enhance that pedestrian safety and mitigate impacts of drive-through operations all pedestrian crossings on site shall utilize the change in surface material and include signage identifying their location to the vehicular traffic that has been conditioned as number six the project was reviewed by various city divisions and partner agencies hearing notices were sent out to surrounding property owners and no comments have been received with the recommended conditions of approval the existing site does appear to meet or exceed code standards and it addresses the applicable findings therefore staff recommends approval subject to the conditions in the staff report that does conclude my presentation the recommended motion is on the screen and i am available for questions thank you great thank you i will to now come back to the commission for disclosures start with commissioner johnson thank you mr chair mr johnson i am familiar with the site and spoke with the athlete's representative commissioner taylor i'm familiar with the site and corresponded with the applicant's representative commissioner dracula familiar with the site commissioner minister fermillar site and i spoke with the applicant's representative mr gower same disclosures uh commissioner balto same disclosures i we'll now open up public comment uh michelle do we have any requests to speak forms did not receive request to speak forms no correspondence or voicemails were received i don't believe we have anybody on zoom requesting to speak on this item either okay thank you is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on this item seeing none we'll close public comments back to the commission for questions or comments mr taylor thank you mr chair stacy i have a quick question for you and i would probably have never asked this question if we didn't have the first item hearing pulled my question is about stacking um do you have enough stacking and capacity should this place be a popular chicken place that might generate a lot more traffic from just you know from an item that was previously pulled they're asking for they were going to ask for 50 capac 49 stacking capacity so michelle would you mind pulling up my presentation one more time just so i can have a picture while we're talking um stacy huggins for the record um commissioner taylor so we um on this particular project um are not anticipating a chicken restaurant um actually this pad f user is intended to be a panera and so we believe based on their other businesses that 330 feet or six cars per lane plus two at the window is adequate for their business model okay thank you very much sure commissioner felto yeah thank you yeah just piggybacking that i visit this uh shopping center at least once or twice a week they've done a very good job on handling all the traffic with all the very popular establishments there and i feel confident from what they've already have set up in place to handle that and knowing that it's not going to be something is extremely popular that they'll be fine there but just knowing from experience they've done a really good job up there right thank you [Music] mr johnson thank you um lee i got a couple of clarification questions but please just i appreciate the the presentation from stacy pointing out the fact that you know the others there was no cup required for the other one so um i'm hoping this is a typo if not i've got one for the update on the code but your statement um in the the note here talks about that in the northwest quadrant zoning district the cup is required and that they're only permitted and it says east of 580. i believe that's correct okay because absolutely none of the northwest quadrant exists east of 580. right so if it's not east of 580 then it can only be permitted if it's within a quarter mile of an off-ramp okay i guess i'm just the the northwest quadrant is not east of 580 right okay exactly so we're saying it's not east of 580 so but it is that was the clarification and then i i guess the the follow-up um to what i pointed out in the first one i was looking at the the master plan findings and i actually am a little bit um maybe in a little disagreement with the way that these have been presented um because as was talked about this was originally meant to be a larger sort of mixed-use facility and now what's being proposed is a drive-through facility that is similar to the other drive-through facilities that we're speaking of there so i would not be saying that in some of our master plan findings that we've got more neighborhood services or a mix of uses on the site based on what we're having here in fact i would think that this is actually a downgrade to that so i guess maybe my question to you is how did how is it that staff was putting those out there as a master plan conformance when what's being proposed is very similar in a auto-centric way to what's already there when i look at those master plan policies i'm not looking specifically at one site but i'm looking at the uses in that general area and does it conform to bringing a mix of uses that is needed and when you look at the things that are around that it does actually hit those master plan policies let me see if i have it here basically conforming to those neighborhood centers where you do have that mix of uses and so again i'm not looking specifically just at that parcel but i'm looking at the entire area there and does this contribute to the mix of uses and as we all know those drive-throughs are have become extremely popular especially in the last couple of years with covid and it is providing another another amenity to the mix of uses that already exist in that area okay um thank you for that explanation i whether or not i agree with that approach but i appreciate you you explaining that to me um and then i guess the the the last question i have mr chair um is you pointed out and and i appreciate you looking at um condition number six with respect to the pedestrian crossings um to me this is this is sort of opposite what we would want to see from a drive-through situation that the parking and pedestrian access to the facility would not cross the drive-through and i think that's the way that the others are in this complex so um in staff's way of looking at this how are we i mean i understand the condition that's here but are we doing enough for creating a situation that allows for the finding talking about pedestrian safety when by our very nature anybody walking into the building has to cross the street well i think when we're looking at this we're trying to enhance that safety which is why we step condition six in there but we also have to comply with the other design standards of renault municipal code with building orientation and having those pedestrian amenities up front so if the entire site were to be redesigned with that drive-through potentially on the other side then it wouldn't meet the other design requirements for pedestrian amenities and building orientation so i think in this particular case we've gone above and beyond to assure safety in those areas and added that condition number six to assure that okay thank you thank you mr chair thank you any other questions of leah or the applicant [Music] okay discussion appreciate directly care yeah i'm ready to make a motion in the matter of case number ldc 22-00083 keystone commons pad f drive through based on compliance with the applicable findings i recommend that planning commission approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions okay we have a motion do we have a second mr taylor i'll second uh all those in favor mr chair before you take that i just want to have a little discussion about the motion just as a a follow-up on my my questions because i i do i do struggle with what we're looking at here because i appreciate that we're meeting code by not routing the drive through on the front and we're creating a softer front to the project and from an overall planning standpoint i 100 support that approach but to that end what we're being asked to do is to take a site that wasn't originally intended to have a drive-through and put one in there and by doing so and by keeping in conformance with the rest of our code we are creating in my mind a potential conflict directly to our finding about a safe environment for pedestrians and i appreciate that we have everything in there for the crosswalk and the different materials i just i struggle with this because that's not the way that anybody who goes that's not going through the drive-through the the tendency as you walk from the parking lot directly into the building and the drive-through is not something that pedestrians ever cross and we are forcing that in this particular design so um to me this is a situation where we're being asked to to compare what our code requires us to do in the building orientation and apply that in the situation we're potentially impacting another one of our findings so that was why i brought it up i appreciate the discussion obviously we can all you know make up our our minds uh one way or the other on that but i just wanted to point out that to me we are actually putting something out here that could potentially be a problem in the long run as a direct result of of our code requirements for development on this site so i just wanted that to be the follow-up to the questions that i asked today so thank you mr chair appreciate the point of discussion thank you any further discussion on the motion okay all those in favor aye aye aye all is opposed nay okay and again because i'm unable to make uh finding number four for providing the state's environment uh the motion carries five to one good luck with your project we'll now move to item 4.4 this is case number ldc22-00084 viewpoint apartments we have a presentation from the applicant good evening for the record dave snellgrove planning and right-of-way manager with cfa with me in the audience tonight i have christina siegfried and also bob skiff who are with the applicants team montebello 2 lp i have jeremy packer with cathexis architecture here who did the architectural designs you can see the perspectives of and i also have kathleen knight who's our engineering service manager at cfa and lauren chilsen may show up just in case you have any traffic questions property location is uh south of i-80 and to the west of south macaron boulevard there the montebello apartments sit up there just by the home depot home depot parking lot area they built built out this was previously greater site this was supposed to be the second phase of what was originally called oasis the bluffs it was approved back in 1995 they did grading on the site but they never got around to actually doing construction there's utilities in the ground there's rockery walls there's all sorts of stuff but never got got around to constructing we have common ownership in association with the montebello product and and this site um so this is really the continuation of something that was envisioned and approved a long time ago we really have about 19 additional units over what had been previously approved 20 plus years ago what we're asking for we have a conditional use permit to develop 432 unit multi-family residential we also have grading that will exceed the 10-foot thresholds which are identified in code and we have a major deviation i'll go through that major deviation because it's not on the whole side it's just one particular part it's kind of a little anomaly with some of the zoning that's north of us so i'll point out where that is as we go through on the left hand side of the screen is the existing reno master plan reason that you have the green and open space area there there are steep slopes that go down the hill and what had been graded up on top previously is pretty much what we're sticking to now similar pad area and what's been worked with that and that is identified to be in in a multi-family type use the zoning on the site the whole property is designated mf14 the zoning on the property on the 41.16 acres would calculate out to a maximum number of units of 576 units we are coming in under that at 432 units is what we're proposing this is a copy and it was kind of hard to find in our files and in the city's files some really good images of what the whole thing looked like so we piecemealed some some things together that we were able to pull out of the city's files the green line there is the separation of where phase one and phase phase two were in that previous project that was case number 79-95 which was called oasis the bluffs previously that was approved for 864 total units so we are working with the side that phase two was graded but not completed and the phase one is the existing montebello apartments and that is completed and operating you can see the area of grading and i mentioned the green areas on the master plan you can see where the steeper slopes are we're not going to be going into those steeper areas we're going up toward the edge of them and we believe working with the site better in terms of some some view potential from the site which really hadn't been uh optimized in the last product type the plan previously was to stay with those uh eight pack buildings with four per floor two story we're working with what's a two three split and i'll get into the architecture a little bit later but it'll be three stories from one side and two stories from the other working with some of the contour and topography that we do have on the site while this is a pad area flatter area that was previously graded it does have some some fault to it so we're trying to work with that effectively and and positively with the architectural styling and hillside adaptive architecture this is the general site plan and what you can see from the shape of this area it's a little bit of skew uh to what you see on the next page is the shape of that really follows that previously graded pad area and you can see on here the faint contour lines of the steeper slope that make up that whole 41.16 acre parcel this is what the site currently looks like this is up on the graded portion in some of these photos like on the upper left-hand one you can see that there's existing rockery walls probably in the four to five foot range there's a lot of them that were previously set and utilities were put on the site and kind of some of the roadway areas were graded in and over time the sagebrush has started to come back but you can still see there was a lot of work done on this site previously this is from the freeway what i want to point out with this up on top i have a i have some topography relative the freeway and i have a couple arrows so on the left hand side view of that left-hand arrow kind of looking towards the site you can see the hare's billboards and then in the in the background there up on top of the bluff you can see the montebello apartments that's the only area that you really have a view in towards the site the arrow up on the top of my my topography picture and that purple dash line that purple dash line identifies a berm that was created really runs all the way along the existing montebello apartments and runs about two-thirds of the way down this site creates probably the best sound and light attenuation buffer that you can have we have a little bit over on the far uh western side of the site for cars coming in but they're not really aimed or direct directed right at the site and we do have a buffer of the harris property which is an oddly fake shaped thin strip of property that that has those harris billboards on it that i'm sure you're probably all familiar with the slope analysis map of the site we are at 83.8 percent in our development area of uh 15 or less you can see all the red parts on there largely where the grading in the walls walls were so we have some anomaly areas that that show steeper than than what the general site is but those two show up at uh at uh over 15 percent and actually going more towards the 30 because they're a wall this is our cut and fill map one of our requests is for a uh to be allowed to go over the threshold of 10 feet for the for the grading on the fills so on this 41 point acre site we have 1.35 acres that is exceeding that 10 feet those are in the purple areas that you see on this that's working with some of this stepped architecture there are some areas we had to grade this in for the roads and get those to match it and then we'll have to step up so you see on some of the high sides of the buildings that's where we have a lot of the uh the 10 foot of fill or greater and in the middle of the site we've got a stepped architectural relative to the clubhouse area that i'll go over in a little greater detail in a minute so amenities on the site the the there's asterisks on here and i just blew up one of the notes that they had on the landscape plan so we've got these red asterisks areas which identified to be amenity areas what la studio put on benches dog parks exercise stations outdoor games picnic tables walking running paths play areas there could be other components that we do put in there but those are some of the things that that could be along this edge there is a trail system or trail network that will continue on from the montebello uh apartment project off to the uh it's on the edge of the slope and it's off to the east of us that'll continue along the perimeter and have some tremendous views and probably a parkour facility or think or facilities or things like that the purple circle that's where the clubhouse is that's where there will be a pool there's a lot of different amenities that will be in that facility that's central to this site i will point out that montebello has their own clubhouse facility so out of this even though it was designed initially as one product type and one project there will be two separate uh amenity areas and we will end up with two separate product types because these have been upgraded and updated for what today's market really is [Music] this is the pedestrian path and and sidewalk connectivity and these will connect in with the montebello sidewalks to the east of us along the perimeter in the edge you can see the sorry i probably should have colored that a different color so you can see that edge trail that'll connect in with the edge trail that's on the montebello portion of the site this is our fencing plan the only area that we would have a proposed six foot masonry wall would be on that north property line along that north property line that's where you've got the freeway but you can see that we're we're actually separated from that arc of the freeway and that's the hare's property so we do have a little distance to the freeway and the berming runs along most of that the green which will be our interface with the existing montebello apartment site we will either have some open fencing treatment or no fencing at all that hasn't been determined yet and then along the perimeter and the area that you can see by the trail and where the slope drops off largely for safety don't want people going down the hill actually going towards chock bluff that's a homeland security issue so we really don't want people going down there too far but that would be an open fencing treatment it wouldn't be a solid fence up along the ridge line there it'll be pretty much invisible or or not highly highly visible from uh down below so we've we've talked to staff about this and there's a possibility we'll end up phasing it and we feel that the phasing scenario that we have here would work out really really well because each one creates a loop with the existing montebello driveways so phase one would provide a fire an emergency access loop going back out phase two you get another fire and emergency access loop and phase three you get the completion of the project which which loops and give you the two ways of access so we feel that that'll work out we may end up going all in one phase but we'd like the opportunity to be able to develop this in phases if the market dictates the minimum lot size or minimum unit size i should say 820 square feet the maximum is 130 1350 square feet overall our average unit size is 1090 square feet which kind of puts us into that small to medium range that that oftentimes can get a density bonus per the code remind you we have 576 allowed units on this we're asking for 423. we don't need a density bonus on this but we're meeting some of what is kind of encouraged within the code in terms of the unit size which will hopefully measure out to some of the price price points and provide some of the much needed housing that we need in the area our parking we're required to have uh 487 each unit will have a one-car garage on this site so we have 432 in garages our total parking provided is 725 which puts us at 1.68 parking spaces per unit when the typical usually one per unit we have additional because we have a uh we have uh the clubhouse parking that we added on to that so we're 1.313 that we're saying is required and we're uh 1.68 unprovided the architectural styling and these two middle middle elevations where you see the three story on one side and the two it's how we're working with with the grades in the hillside adaptive architecture wall we're not meeting the hillside ordinance there is enough slope on the site and the way to work with the site more effectively is by working with these grades so kathleen and and uh jeremy put a lot of work in and how to get this work and then we also ran this by staff and how this works out with the code requirements and they were they were fine with this as well we think it'll be a very nice attractive product on the downhill side of this to particular one you have the garages down where the three story is on some others you access vehicularly from the uphill side and in that case you would have a garage coming in kind of one what would be the middle floor and then then three stories of units on them on the opposite side this is the elevations of the clubhouse area matching in with with the styling that cathexis has put forward with the residential and these are these are some different examples of other products that that the group has done who's proposing this in the upper right hand corner i do want to point out that is the existing montebello fitness room the other pictures up here from folsom davis fort lauderdale and rocklin and they all range from kind of the low 200s in terms of number of units and some up to 450 so a little bit larger than what we're looking at here but this denotes the quality with which the this group works with and and looks to carry forward in this project i told you i'd get to the minor deviation and we're just about near the end of my presentation but i want to cover this particularly with you up in the right hand corner i've got a copy of the zoning map if you notice that yellow really oddly shaped parcel there that's actually the parcel that harris owns has the five billboards on it that property is zoned large lot residential one 1 unit per acre there's a portion of code it's 1804 905 a that requires that there be an additional setback when you're adjacent to a single-family residentially zoned property which llr-1 would fall under unfortunately we we can't just meet the standard setback for this we have to go extra so we had designed this and not realizing that that was an llr1 property because we know it'll never get used as a single family lot well we found out that the legal zoning on that property actually is single family so technically we need to to do this and try and get some of the allowance for our setbacks to come back to what we can have on all the other areas of the property but that's the reason for this major deviation it's just in one area up on the northern end of the property that we needed needed to get some relief there so overall 41.16 acres we meet the parking requirements our unit sizes are down at that small to medium size that we feel will be be positive that the allowed density overall on the site is 14 dwelling units per acre we're actually 10.5 in what our density proposal is we're just a little bit higher than what was approved 20 plus years ago and i want to go back to that and hearken back to that because this whole area had been viewed this was one of the earlier things that was built up there off of summit ridge drive montebello apartments and this had been envisioned to be part of that it's just kind of been a slow goer it's it's out on a little peninsula there and and we're looking forward to bringing this forward we feel that this provides for completion of a project that was previously approved with similar density provides a product type that's updated for today's market provides unit sizes of meat to that small to medium size and provides a continuation it'll provide that continuation of the trail and pedestrian walkway linkages that already exist within montebello the previous approvals for 864 units were at 882. um they were 18 more than what was previously previously approved and then i'm available for any questions as my team is as well great thank you so much we have a presentation leah yes i do chairman members of the commission again for the record my name is leah brock assistant planner with development services city of reno i'm going to follow up on what mr snellgrove covered which he did a pretty thorough presentation again the applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow for the development of a 432-unit multi-family residential development with amenities the application includes a request for fills in excess of 10 feet on approximately 3 percent of the 41 acre site and a major deviation for a 50 reduction in the required setback between multi-family residential and single-family residential key issues related to this request include the overall site design grading traffic access and circulation and that major deviation of the required setback the subject parcel is located within the multifamily residential zoning district that allows for 14 units per acre let's see to the east is the multi-family residential apartment complex with the 450 units and amenities to the south is the choc bluff water treatment plant and to the west is approximately a hundred acres of vacant land located in the large lot residential one acre minimum zoning district staff does anticipate that that llr1 lot will be come forward for a zoning change to something along the lines of mixed use in the near future the subject site does have a master plan land use designation of mixed neighborhood and parks greenways and open space it's also within the foothills neighborhood per the structure plan framework the development the actual development is located within the mixed neighborhood portion and the pgos designation will remain as undisturbed open space as proposed and with the recommended conditions the project is in substantial conformance with the master planned land use designation and the master plan goals and policies such as housing options density and intensity freeway corridors and connectivity briefly mr snellgrove covered all of this but the overall site design includes 432 multi-family residential units those units will range from 820 square feet to 350 square feet each unit will have a one car garage 725 on-site parking spaces 755 trees are proposed with 4 530 shrubs and there will be over 15 acres of undisturbed open space the proposed development area does utilize portions of a site that was previously graded as the extension or second phase of the apartment project to the east the development proposes fills greater than 10 feet in height with a maximum of 19.5 and is limited to 3.28 percent of the site the majority of the grading does not exceed fills more than four feet in height and the limited grading and preservation of natural features does meet or exceed renault municipal code standards the applicant did submit a traffic study and all intersections are expected to operate a satisfactory level as you can see in the image above the access to the subject property can be off of mccarran coming from either the north or the south it does require looping up and around to get to the site and then access to the actual site will be through the existing montebello apartment units emergency access road will need to be established prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy since that has not been established at this point we are conditioning that as condition number six i know that the applicant has been working with home depot and the property to the north to establish that access should that not become feasible or happen there are some alternatives that i'll let the applicant discuss should you have any questions about that reno municipal code does require a 20-foot setback between multi-family zoning districts and single-family zoning districts as mr snellgrove pointed out the applicant has requested the major deviation to allow for a fifty percent decrease taking it from twenty feet to ten feet again the parcel to the north is an undeveloped narrow parcel adjacent to the freeway with six existing billboards on it staff recommends a six-foot concrete wall be erected along that north property line and the required wall will restrict access between the development and the interstate it'll mitigate noise it's consistent with the adjacent development to the east however since publishing the staff report the applicant has requested that we change the verbiage of condition five and add what you see in red there which is for any building abutting the north property line so before the condition read prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy a six foot concrete block wall shall be erected along the north property line again the applicant has requested we change that for only the buildings that abut that north property line that that must be built prior to the certificate of occupancy staff does support the change in that condition the project was reviewed by various city divisions and partner agencies courtesy notices and hearing notices were sent out to surrounding property owners we did receive three comments which have been in opposition to the project two were concerned with the reduction in the required setback and the third did not cite a specific concern i believe also there was a fourth uh voicemail of opposition that i think you guys received today with the recommended conditions of approval the existing site appears to meet or exceed the code standards and addresses the applicable findings staff does recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the above amendment to condition number five that does conclude my presentation the recommended motion is on the screen and i am available for questions thank you thank you back to the commission for disclosures commissioner gower thank you mr chairman i received and read emails and familiar with the site commissioner munoz same disclosures commissioner dracula same disclosures commissioner taylor same disclosures commissioner johnson same disclosures commissioner of alto same disclosures uh we'll now move on to public comment uh michelle do we receive any request to speak forms i did not receive request to speak forms no emails were received we did receive a voicemail that will play for you right now and i don't believe anybody on zoom is requesting to speak on this item i don't see any hands up so we'll play the voicemail now yes i'm commenting on ldc2 the view boy viewpoint apartments that's an awful lot of apartments being built it's hard to understand it without really seeing the plan and how big it is and so forth but i totally disagree with this setback changes in the 20-foot setback or any of the changes in the setback the setbacks allow light to come down onto the streets and building we don't need farina to look like manhattan we don't need for the buildings to be right up on the sidewalk there are way too many of those already there's one on california next to the bank it's like that it's ridiculous so we need some some green space we need some light coming into the streets we need the 20-foot setback additionally you sent out something about ldc23-003 i don't think any of us who aren't planners or developers have any idea what the difference is between ms and smbu so we don't understand you know what what we should be saying about it so that should be clarified somehow in this little postcard and that's it for voicemails thank you uh would anyone in the public like to speak on this item seeing none we'll close public comment come back to the commission for questions or comments mr cowan thank you mr chairman uh dave a couple questions for you [Music] um thanks dave so functionally can you talk to me about how this apartment complex will interface with the existing one more from like an administrative perspective and it relates to access are we talking about different ownership different operations so how does that affect the interface at that boundary i'll have christina siegfried answer that from the operational standpoint she's known as far more than i do okay thanks thank you i'm christina siegfried and i'm the part of the asset team with the ownership group which is a privately held family trust the parcel is landlocked you cannot access the back lot without going through the front property as such the parcels will always have to be together they cannot be sold separately so therefore they will be operated together there's a current existing clubhouse at montebello that is in the middle of being redone uh there's a 9 000 square foot fitness center at that location and already existing we are looking at adding additional parking spaces in front of that space in order to handle additional traffic in and out without impacting the community there is a community director there an assistant there would be added a bookkeeper and three additional leasing personnel for the management of the property there will be a separate office in the viewpoint office for resident services so that we provide the level of customer service that is our expectation and our management about every five years if you were to look at one of our communities we upgrade these aesthetics of them and maintain the capital improvements so that the property maintains looking in a condition so that we have the relationship with the residents that it is a well-maintained community and the goal will be that the management out of the montebello will provide equal service as we give currently for both communities moving forward thank you that's really helpful and so just for clarification the residents of either community will have access to the amenities respectively in each one of them no so you can't we're not going to put a fence and prevent them but there will be different fob access for access into them and one of that is for security purposes so we know who is in in in these amenities spaces to manage for damage and management problems they will be camera they will be fobbed for access uh the the community center for the viewpoint is scheduled to be 12 000 square feet with additional amenity spaces throughout the green space in the community pretty high end type of amenities we want to resort to style pool we want a gaming center to address the residents that are we consider all of age of our residents to be all of our residents and one of the things that we've seen in park communities currently is that we do not build for the age of 6 to 16 16 and over they can use the fitness center under six they use the tot lot but there's nothing for that in between to encourage family involvement and that is one of the factors that we want to continue in doing viewpoint that currently is not available at montebello and we are currently in the process of improving the amenities at montebello so that when viewpoint is built there is comparable amenities between both communities to try and minimize any management issues between both sites of the resident differences thank you for that clarification and um i guess just one follow-up question so the the interface and the pedestrian level through the communities can a person in one they'll be able to walk their dog through the other community and vice versa correct where there is the border between montebello and viewpoint that you saw the green line on the map there's a piece of dirt right there that belongs to montebello that's not developed and that piece of dirt is it's not you could never build anything on it but the concept is that that would become a dog park um tying the two communities together currently while this was a vacant lot it was used a lot for dog people's dog entertainment and so they use that walking path to go there and that path will stay cont going continuously along uh we're hoping to enhance it with things like an outdoor exercise amenities so that that space continues to be able to utilize space great thank you mr chairman i have a couple other questions but i want to just see if anyone else wants to jump in here uh thank you mr taylor chairman so there will be one access point for both communities is that correct correct one access for both viewpoint and montebello you have to drive through viewpoint or through montebello in order to access viewpoint so at one point there was consideration of gating viewpoint and separating the two but we were concerned about traffic backing up into montebello we wanted to keep the traffic flow going so that idea went away um trying it's hard to explain to you that the management style of the ownership group is we don't like negative reviews we want a good relationship with our residents so in our design conversations one of the top things is how is our residents and the people that live there going to accept as we expand this community how do we make that a cohesive relationship between the two thank you thank you commissioner gower thank you mr chairman i guess uh on a follow-up to that and lauren i don't know if this is something that you look at in your traffic study but essentially what we're talking about is uh new adts coming through a private parcel um which could have impacts on those residents is that something that you looked at um and if so i'd i'd be curious to hear about it thank you very much for your clarification on the operations good evening lauren chelsea with headway transportation yes at a high level we did i mean we wanted to make sure as well as the development team that we weren't overloading the existing roadway i think the key aspect here is that we have a looped roadway it's not one roadway and it's effectively two for most of most of the area through montebello there's the the first part of the entry is is one road but it's also quite wide and divided and in its high capacity but then once you enter the kind of the middle portion of montebello it splits and you can go either way around and that continues into the viewpoint project so overall yeah we believe there's you know adequate capacity and it's a reasonable access plan that's how it was master planned from day one and and we think it's reasonable at a high level and and there are also adequate traffic controls speed controls speed bumps things like that to prevent people you know wanting to get through this existing community to you know their apartment in this other community there are things in place to or will be in place to prevent you know situations with people potentially speeding through and interactions with pedestrians there are there are existing speed bumps throughout that main entry area that that first segment if you will that's the single lane roadway there's there's multiple speed bumps in there we did not propose to add lots of them as they can become also obnoxious um but in in general yes there's there's adequate devices to to manage traffic okay thank you mr chairman i have another question for dave you're on a roll okay keep going thanks dave question on the parking and the capacity um it i guess my first question is how does what is being proposed for this project in terms of capacity compared to the existing project to the uh east yeah i'm not sure how many they have in the previous in the montebello project in in other products that i've worked with of similar type and similar size and similar unit size you know the one the one parking space per unit that's pretty standard within the within the multi-family we've we've exceeded that we we actually added in i kind of wondered why we were adding in required parking just for a clubhouse alone because everyone can potentially walk there but we did add in extra spaces there and then we went above and beyond with our common area parking each each pla unit will have a one car garage so that's 432 and we were at i think it was seven 725 i think was our total that we provided so we're almost another 300 parking spaces around which took us to 1.68 which is actually in the pretty good range for this type of apartment project yeah i'm not sure how many they have over and what the ratio is i don't know if christina or bob know that number in terms of parking if you can go and come up here so it gets on the record i don't know it off the top of my head i know we have garages some of the buildings at montebello are townhouse units with town uh garages underneath and others are eight plex buildings uh and they can rent a garage and then there's every apartment has a carport so if you don't have a garage that's attached to your unit then the remainder of those have an assigned carport space and then we have a lot of unassigned open parking spaces so we never have parking problems i know that i'm pretty sure we're more than right we're right around one and a half per unit okay thank you christine knows that product better and there sounds like they're relatively equivalent in terms of the number of parking spaces per unit that they're working at right now yeah i appreciate that and i can save it for a discussion but i just want to say now dave so you know i mean i'm a little bit concerned that this might actually be over parked at 1.6 per unit i mean essentially what's happening here is we're taking away um space on the parcel that could otherwise be dedicated to other uses you know open space amenities and that sort of thing we're you know creating parking spaces when maybe they're not really needed i have that happen on a lot of different projects where you take the stab at it you look at what the parking ratio is in the municipality and then you you have to look at what your relievers are and oftentimes you end up with parking on an adjacent street well we don't really have that opportunity here we have montebello which has their own parking and we have this it has its own parking but there's not an adjacent street for public parking so we have to air on the side of caution oftentimes i hope you understand that if it were different we had some streets and we had some type of relief we might have a little bit more flexibility i think 1.5 to 1.68 which is where we're at and where it sounds like montebello's at that's where i see a lot of these coming in right now in terms of garden style or some of the urban infill apartments as well okay thanks um mr chairman i have one other question but i can't remember what it is so i'm going to stop there for now thank you thanks mr taylor thank you mr chairman i have a couple questions so maybe i'll start with leah i mean when i look at this it's the addition of you know 18 units which isn't that big of a deal well i shouldn't say it's not that big of a deal but it's from stuff that was approved back in 1995 so now we're seven years later no we're much a lot more than that anyways my question is like we i don't see anything in here for rtc trip reduction plan and i'm sure that wasn't part of the original approvals is that something that we need to be looking at now um for this with the addition if we look at the big picture we're adding 400 plus more units so we're going to have over 800 units one access for all those is that something that we normally would see within the development like this well i'm still new with the city um this is my first multi-family residential that i've done but we did receive comments from rtc and those comments were forwarded to the applicant and he can probably speak a little bit more about the what our rtc said but it wasn't anything out of the norm of what they normally say that you have to comply with so i don't know it was in here that the letter no no i usually only include it if it's something that's going to be required and they didn't have any requirements okay so what about one access for more than 800 apartments is that something that we would normally see maybe jason it's not anything that is in reno municipal code that that would not meet the code standards okay so it's acceptable for not looking at the 400 but over 800 yes there's nothing there's nothing in reno municipal code that restricts that okay um and then i have a traffic question thanks leah thanks lauren when was the traffic study done oh just a few months ago it stated um okay there wasn't a date on the page that we june we issued it june 10. okay did you look at any of the traffic volumes further north at the i-80 exits and entrance we did not study the interchange for the reason the project's generating about 200 peak hour trips and there's long-term plans to widen mccarran up in that area so we didn't we didn't delve into that in detail but in the long range plan there is there isn't other improvements planned okay um and then my next question what how far out did you look in the traffic because it could be another three to four years before this is built out i think if i'm looking at the phasing we did an existing condition scenario and also a 20-year horizon a 20-year horizon and all levels of services were sufficient all policy policies maintained at all studies intersections okay thank you you bet hey mike are you can you hear us mike michelle yes i can hi mike um hi i have a traffic question i know that shocks you um when you look at this in the current traffic study and um the new traffic that's going to be on there do we need to consider anything north on mccarran or are you satisfied with what this traffic studies uh provided and i just have an excerpt that i'm reading in the uh our past i am comfortable with the traffic study as presented okay thanks mike that might be a standard answer okay thank you mr chairman thank you any further questions from the commission mr chair mr johnson um actually just following along probably as the second part of what commissioner taylor was going um dave obviously we touched on it briefly in the staff presentation and there was some information about the requirements for a secondary entrance into here i see from the plans there's a anticipated route that's coming in from the north through home depot and you know i guess weaving through the billboards on the site north of looking really weak but it yeah it goes by him can you can you talk to me about where where that is in terms of kind of where you're at with what's planning on and what the alternatives would be if that doesn't happen certainly i have a slide if you can bring my presentation back up please michelle and a slide just in case this question came up and motor through here and let's see oh no i think it's right down there okay so the blue dashed line follows along the harris property it goes to the south of the billboards there's already a graded i want to call a little bit more than a two-track road it's fairly well traveled that goes out into the home depot parking lot there's already some easements in there for harris access and and we've been working with harrah's and the harris park's got been going well in home depot we've got some more negotiations to do with them we're hopeful that we can get that it would basically use their driveway which is the same way that harrah's is going right now come down their entry and then we talked to fire they don't want us coming back to the main intersection there that goes up to home depot goes into montebello the summit ridge drive so you can see it goes past what is 7-eleven there and then comes back down so that way we have two points of access if something happened talking to trey palmer if something happened at that main intersection that's the day-to-day entry this gives a secondary route that gets you to another point we fully understand that now if something happened where we ended up not being able to get that we've got two other axis one of them we're in control of because it's on the montebello property which is just to the just to the uh east of us now this one would would take the existing uh there's an eight foot i think it's an eight foot wide path the pedestrian path is fairly wide and we looked at that some parts might need to get pulled away from the from the existing units and those would be more over towards the uh western side where it says rno and down below that we'd see that might need to get pulled away from the units but the rest of it would be widening out that path to get the appropriate fire and emergency access lane where this connects in on that little cloverleaf loop there's already an access point that serves as the as the clean out area for the detention basin that's at the entry to montebello so we'd already be utilizing something keep in mind i know that's ndot but this would be a gated emergency access type situation that we'd be working with if there was a problem with that one and this this one's the least desirable the purple one that goes over and that actually goes to the heiser family trust piece that is likely going to be coming forward with his own change and some different development plans the unfortunate part of that one there's a that two-track road that travels along the uh by the billboards kind of continues on but it actually goes into ndot's right of way had conversations with uh alex wolfson and alex is no longer with and that he's now here with public works but my conversations with alex he said yeah that's something that could probably work but the challenge to it is because it's a highway you get fhwa in there so he said he's seen situations where they've been fine with it and then they send it on to fhwa and it might take them three quarters of a year to a year to go through their process and then that fhwa says no i'm not going to do it so it's a it's a riskier proposition that way i will point out that the pinker line that we have south of montebello that's actually in their control and because it would have more grading with it it's our second choice not our first choice thank you for walking me through that no problem i will uh maybe just since uh commissioner taylor woke him up if mike michelle can maybe weigh in and make sure that he's okay with any of the options that have been presented here yeah i am familiar with all the options that dave has presented and i'm confident that uh there is a solution amongst uh the several options that he presented okay thank you mike sorry for the crack about waking you up i just couldn't help myself sorry about that you're not here in the room thanks mike um i have maybe one more question for dave sure um and maybe this is a an observation in terms of um you spoke a lot about the hillside adaptive style of architecture which i can appreciate um however one of the things i noticed is that some of the hillside adaptive architecture you're doing is actually forcing you into some of the 10-foot fills that we're doing here so was there a consideration of i know there was a limitation in terms of the number of facilities and like the style but was there a consideration in some of those of maybe not trying to force a hillside adaptive architecture onto a site that you're actually having to create the hill i'll answer a brief part of that but i'm going to ask jeremy packer to come up and talk about a lot of this in terms of vision some of the some of what we went through initially was taking a look at this site and envisioning what it was and trying to take advantage of what this site does offer that site offers views not only along the edge but building some of the units up and getting views out over the tops of some of the buildings that are on that edge so with that i'd like to have jeremy come up and talk about some of the architectural styling what went into that he he thought longer and harder about it i know the rest of the commission doesn't want the two architects talking right now you're gonna have to make this brief sorry it's trouble i'll make it brief jeremy packer for the record um and actually the architecture really was secondary to dealing with access and uh the roadways in order to make accessibility for the pedestrians as well as the cars work and pedestrian access into the buildings a lot of that grade fill actually came up from the roadways to get those roadways to be gentle as they step up as well as the two and a half story requirement so you get kind of a doubling effect for those but we tried to integrate those into the hillside as much as possible in what dave alluded to was max of maximizing those views so these buildings are designed to fit into the hillside so each unit could look out their living spaces over the top of the other ones out to the valley thank you for that and i guess the follow-up to that is is there a limit where a three-story can't be done on this site so you have to limit it to it the two and a half story with the the cut that's correct it has to be two and a half story because of the mf-14 okay so if we didn't have that hillside adaptive architecture it would be a two-story unit would be the limit limitation to whatever right it would be a two-story building sitting on the site right all right thank you for that appreciate it thank you mr chair thank you further questions move into discussion thank you mr commissioner dracula yeah i know i think we got my my the thing that jumps off the page the most was the traffic um i used to live there and then i took a drive through there i think there's a lot to be said about that wider feel going in through those first two main roads but i feel like we covered that ad nauseam um i guess the thing that jumped off was the intersection with the gas station to the northwest and entrance into montebello but it looks like mike dropped the hammer and he feels good about it um it sounds like you know those trips can be handled at that intersection and i travel it a lot it really is relatively smooth so we covered pretty good there what i was worried about thank you did you live in the montebello the apartments i'm very jealous because that gym looks incredible yes it was 20 years ago who's the kiddo oh yeah mr taylor so i think i need some commissioner's help here and i'm open um to me this i i know that it was approved back in 1995 which is 27 years ago i use my calculator it's 27. um but the addition of 400 more units even though it was previously approved i feel like it needs to be looked at a little bit more i don't know if rtc was looking at it as there's 18 more units or if they're looking at is there's 400 more units it just seems like a lot of a lot of more housing on the infrastructure and i think mccarran backs up pretty regularly there especially at i-80 so um i'm just looking for some help getting your guys's level of comfort i know it meets code the way it is i'm just wondering if we're looking at this in the bigger picture of a thousand you know 880 something apartments that was approved 27 years ago and then it could be built out we're looking at another three or four years what's going to happen then that that's where i'm at but i'm i'm open to suggestions and your wisdom all of you i'll start i don't know if i have wisdom but i have a some thoughts here um i do travel that area every day and there is regular backup but knowing that the mccarran loop is something that rotc is continually looking at to make sure that because it's the main artery of the entire area um that gives me a little bit of comfort not really worrying about it because i know it's going to be taken care of i know that's something they can't let uh fall into ruin like the north valley some of the areas up there have so that gives me some comfort there so i do not worry about that i use that home depot every other day i've never had problems getting in and out of there getting on the freeway there other than getting right to mccarran and i-80s never been an issue so um i don't see any issues with it in the short term maybe in the long term which is you know only a couple years i don't see it being a big deal i think i i think i share that perspective uh especially with the i guess the the way that you drive up the loops it seems like they cut down on the traffic because you're not really stopping um i drive that area a lot as well and i kind of share that perspective but i hear what you're saying and i guess i'd be curious if how rtc looked at it but i do feel pretty comfortable and i guess i'm sorry commissioner i guess it's just or uh mr chairman it's not just the traffic but the whole development as a whole is there anything that we're not looking at that we should be looking at and maybe that's for leah i mean i think we have the access covered and they can't build anything until they have another access which makes me feel a little bit more comfortable rtc mccarran maybe i'm just talking out loud here because i haven't got a chance to in a while [Laughter] thanks i guess leah or jason do you want to weigh in yeah jason garcia-labou planning manager for the record yay um so in these situations we really depend on our outside agencies providing uh feedback on whether or not we should add conditions and things like that and through staff analysis as mike pointed out as well as kind of working with rtc um typically we'll receive conditions that address these issues in this circumstance it was satisfactory for the development and so that's in staff's opinion and as mentioned in the staff report we feel it's adequate but as some of the other commissioners have mentioned as well you know that mccarran is pretty high up on the list and so again i think staff feels pretty comfortable with where it's at that's good enough for me thanks jason mr chair mike michelle is he has his hand raised oh yes uh mike would you like to weigh in yeah um rtc did comment on the traffic study and they indicated that um their comment was that um summit ridge drive remain at a level of service d and that's what the traffic study says and so they're okay with the study and and as uh you know i my father lives in the assisted living place there i go there every day i've gone there every day for the last three years and i've never really seen a traffic issue with with that intersection so that's just kind of uh anecdotal comment right michelle's awake i i will get i will hit snooze again thanks i don't remember i don't think we had the full rtc report in our pocket i don't remember seeing it so thank you very much for clarifying that's all i have great thank you mr chairman to respond to you commissioner taylor something that you brought up in your comments earlier your questions was the requirement for some sort of trip production program i didn't see that in our conditions and we see that a lot of time for other projects was that something that staff considered for this leah brock for the record um mike michelle would probably be the best person to answer that question again but i did um pull up the comments from rtc and i just wanted to read it into the record okay so rtc has reviewed the request for the conditional use permit to develop a 432-unit multi-family residential apartment complex grading with fills 10 feet or greater in height and a major deviation to allow 50 reduction in the required 20-foot setback between multi family zoney district and single-family zoning district rtc concurs with the recommendations stated in the memorandum attached with this application the applicant should follow the recommendations as a condition of approval no further comments the policy level of service standard for summer ridge drive is level of service d policy los for intersection for intersections should be designed to provide a level of service consistent with maintaining the policy level of service of the intersecting corridor the project should be required to meet all the conditions necessary to complete road improvements to maintain that level of service standards and then it just goes on if you have any questions please contact this person and that's that was the comments from rtc perfect thank you you're welcome it's not in here we have like one page from a traffic report and i apologize for that usually i only include it if there's something major in the comments but i think in the future i will include the comments from rtc thank you very much thank you mike mike do you have any thoughts on uh commissioner gower's uh question about a trip reduction program oh yeah that was part of their comment and and that was that the applicant is encouraged to contact rtc in regards to um in regards to that particular program so the applicant is directed to uh contact and coordinate with rtc in regards to that program if the commission would entertain a condition requiring that i would be interested include that in a motion can we uh just ask the applicant what their thoughts were you get dave snellgrove and christina double whammy so if i'm understanding correctly you're trying to figure out ways to reduce cars on the road and provide use public transportation is that what you're asking would we support that correct i don't see a problem in supporting that great and just for clarification i think what we're talking about here is that information would be provided from rtc to you as the community administrator to distribute to residents alerting them to the fact that these programs exist and how to get more information about it so we have a move-in video that is sent to the residents explaining to them the services that are available to them and we would have no problem incorporating that into our move-in packet and making it available we also do monthly resident functions that that information could be available in any of our community centers in order to support that fantastic that's wonderful thank you thank you very much okay mr chair commissioner johnson i have just a couple of comments um actually one of the to follow up on commissioner taylor's one of the the questions that i had and i appreciated commissioner gower's questions was the not not so much the 400 units getting out to the street but it was the 400 units running through the existing facility and how that was going to be and i think understanding better how these two are going to relate to each other with that sort of common level of management and everything else i think helps to alleviate that problem as well so that you know was one of the concerns that i had um the second thing i wanted for discussion it didn't come up in any of our questions was the request for the major deviation for the setback reduction um and i appreciated that you know obviously we got a voicemail about it i did look at this because that's certainly something that jumps out at me whenever i see both deviation and major in the same comment and it talks about setbacks um however in this case i'm i i see no issues with it because it is to a parcel that is largely undevelopable uh so all of the reasons for having that set back in there in the first place really don't exist in this situation so while i know we normally uh take a much harder look at this it didn't come up in discussion and i think that's appropriate because in this case there isn't anything that we're really impacting by doing this so i just wanted to get that out there on the record since it is one of the items that we're weighing in on tonight and just wanted to you know make sure there wasn't any additional discussion on that since we hadn't had any here so um [Music] thank you i appreciate you putting that information on the record thank you is anybody ready to make a motion mr chair real quick pulling up amended commission condition number five as well i know that we kind of glossed over that can we bring it back up michelle and lee as you're pulling up maybe just going over why you guys added that in and just for clarity's sake yes thank you leah brock for the record uh the only thing that we've really changed again is that we had in there prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy a six foot concrete block wall shall be erected along the north property line since this is going to be constructed in phases we don't necessarily need to condition that that six foot concrete wall be erected prior to the first certificate of occupancy because the first certificates of occupancy may be nowhere near there the applicant has requested that we modify that condition to add that it that that first certificate of occupancy for any building abutting that north property line to staff that makes sense and we do support that change in verbiage great thank you mr chair one more discussion item before uh moves on and that was to the the other finding that we're making for the ten foot fills um i appreciated the conversation from the applicant uh and from staff uh with respect to what we're doing there i do think um in in the discussion about um sort of using that to not only help with the housing but to assist with accessible circulation to minimize the slopes of the roads and to make the pathways more accessible so i think it's interesting because typically hillside adaptive architecture you're not almost creating much of the hill when you're doing it you're sort of reacting to it and this is a little bit opposite of that but i appreciate what they're doing and as a result i can make the findings even though they're not so much based on the existing topography so i'm just going down my checklist of all the things i need to make sure i mention so thank you for that thank you is anybody ready to make a motion mr chair i'm ready to make a motion please do thank you in case number ldc22.00084 [Music] viewpoint apartments based upon compliance with the applicable findings i moved to approve this conditional use permit and major deviation subject to the conditions listed in their staff report with the recommended change to condition number five and the addition of a condition number seven that would require the distribution of trip reduction materials from the rtc now that the applicant has so willingly agreed to distribute here we have a motion we have a second commissioner dracula chase second all those in favor aye aye aye aye all those opposed motion carries unanimously uh good luck with your project okay we're going to take a 10 minute break so too long too short we'll be back here at 7 55 pm michelle are we good to go uh we're back on uh for agenda minimum 4.5 case number ldc22-00048 dp2 master plan and zoning map amendment we have a presentation from the applicant [Music] thank you chair uh velto john crempotic representing the applicant dolan properties too the dolan brothers here jim and danny are here representing the family there's others involved uh you struck you threw me curveball the first case i had i was after staff yes john can you bring that microphone closer to you so we can hear you a little bit better bend it towards you this way is that okay bend it towards you there thank you okay um there's the current master plan ut proposed single family zoning ut and corresponding sf8 to the proposed master plan of sf6 if there's one thing i think that's important to um this map the most important thing is look at the orange line that borders the south end of the site that's the annexation line there's been a lot of movement at this part of the city the last couple of years the commission has worked made decisions on canyon's pud recently canyon's edge um and now dp2 in addition there's the water tank that was on this map here you can see the tumwat tank a separate action that is sitting on the canyon's edge property at the north end of that property east of canyons and so those are all separate actions all have been approved this is the last parcel that is in the city that has been annexed to the city based on that orange map so when people talk about and i know there was a lot of nextdoor.com i heard from staff today or next door whatever they call it about oh another one this is you've heard me say before the end of the end and it was recently to the east this is the end of the end as annexation goes of properties have been annexed to the city of reno going south um i have a bunch of policy support on master plan policy i'm not going to dive into it i'm just not that kind of a wordy guy i'd be glad to share it with the commission on q a i think it might be important the discussion because we are in the foothill neighborhood i've got some support from the guiding principles the foothill neighborhood and also sustain a sustainable development that is germane to these requests and these colors on the map thank you for your time i'll wait for questions from the commission great thank you john we have a presentation brooke good evening commission chair velto good to be before you all tonight brooke oswald associate planner with development services project before you tonight is ldc220048 dp2 master plan and zoning map amendment so let's quickly look at the project site the project location uh to the left there we see that's de monte ranch high school up and uh you see the number of 40 parcels that are going out uh just recently uh before this commission we had that uh amendment to the canyons pud this is in close proximity this is just going up to that area uh so that general area of where we are it's approximately an eight acre site once again we are looking at a request for a master plan amendment and a zoning map amendment with that tonight you'll also we have another case that we heard we have an associated tentative map conditional use permit and minor deviation this property was annexed in 2007. the key issues that we look at this is that compatibility with the surrounding zoning and districts and uses and that compatibility with the overall master plan just come in a little bit closer to the site as uh uh junk paddock mentioned you can see the tumwa water tank directly to the right of the site uh the palisades uh development you see there which is a mainly a family residential development with their open space and the density that that they're coming in about half acre densities should be noted too that canyon's pud we do have there's probably approximately 81 units on 160 acres we're starting to really go up the hill and it gets very steep at that point and that density is starting to drop down but we do have attached product proposed up in that area too and a number of uh open space and and uh amenities that will be provided to the public through that that development so to quickly look at the reimagine reno master plan what we're coming in is that ut that's that uh unincorporated transition so when something is annexed and they don't ask for that master plan at that time we have a translation that comes over that's often that unincorporated transition that comes over from the county what they're proposing is that single-family neighborhood as you can see the surrounding area is is uh compatible in that single-family neighborhood uh master-planned uh land-use designation additionally outside of that portion of um the canyons pud that we're seeing the park screenways in open space the majority of that site that is developable is also single family so very consistent within that master plan in that area as we look at the our reno zoning code that's coming in at ut40 that that's unincorporated transition one dwelling unit per 40 acres this is an eight acre site so this is a non-conforming zoning on this eight acre parcel they'd be able to build because it is non-conforming they'd be able to build one unit on this what they are proposing is that sf's eight zoning now that is um that is conforming under that single family neighborhood that is the high end in that and what we look at that single-family neighborhood our densities are looking we're roughly between two dwelling units per acre up to about eight that's uh where we where that master plan is generally coming in so they are on the upper end of that there are some considerations with that though because we are starting to move up in those foothill areas and that starts through our hill cell development and some of those that starts to restrict that density and so that density um uh restricts and go down and so though we're not seeing that sf3 and sf3 we're seeing a similar density and we and and through our next case you'll see that they're using clustering and some other mechanisms to do that looking at the findings that compatibility i went through complies with their master plan arena municipal gold and nrs our public service and utilities are available they're in close proximity and it's not detrimental to public health safety and welfare um additionally you have received several emails uh over the last uh couple days uh related to concerns and i think with that i will go into those concerns i think there'll be a more appropriate to talk with with through the tentative map and the uh conditional use process and we we can move through some of those so with that that concludes my um uh presentation i leave you with two motions one for the master plan and one for the zoning map amendment thank you thank you come back to the commission for uh disclosures start with commissioner gower be mr chairman i um have previously visited this site um received and read multiple emails and spoke with applicants representative thank you special monies i received and read emails and previously visited the site commissioner dracula i spoke with the applicant and read and received emails sorry commissioner taylor i read and received emails and corresponded with the applicant's representative mr johnson received and read the emails and spoke with the applicant's representative mr alto saying disclosures now move to public comments shall we request to speak forms i did not receive any request to speak forms we did receive um 21 emails in opposition of this project there were no voicemails and nobody has their hand up in zoom so i think we're good on the public comment portion great thank you is there anyone in the public that would like to speak seeing none we'll close public comment back to the commission for questions mr thank you um john i think this question is for you i'm hoping that um we can put up you had a good map in your presentation but i'm hoping um that we have a map that we can reference to help address the compatibility of the project with adjacent land uses i have one um if i could go to the overhead because it was on the i had to break these into two different presentations but rather than going to that one i could just um pull up this map can we can we switch over i'm not sure how easy or not this is could you zoom uh what is that zoom in zoom out it depends on how your head works thank you very much there's the big picture is that what you're looking for commissioner it is yeah i'm just just looking at it and digesting it for a second yeah the idea here was rather you know it's black and white um uh but um the idea here was that it shows a little more detail with the footprints that have been approved for canyons the band of development for canyon's edge and then dp2 as proposed and of course palisades that exist today thank you i actually don't think i have any questions it's just very informative to to see this i think it provides a useful context for understanding where this fits in with the broader um you know development yeah that's occurred and is planned to occur in the area thank you thank you appreciate it thank you mr chairman thank you mr mr johnson question for brooke thank you john just want a little more i think you touched on it in your presentation that's just looking for a little more clarification so obviously when we looked at your zoning it shows that this is sf 8 which as you mentioned was the higher end as opposed to the sf 3 that's next to it but you made a comment about you know developability and how this is actually compatible even though we're not seeing that uh in the numbers on the map could you maybe just explain that a little bit further as to what you meant by that certainly so i think if we look at that palliative development that's approximately 300 acres that they're looking there and the amount of homes there and how those so they're an sf3 but if you kind of take that out they're 900 could build up to 900 homes now they're going to be restricted through our development standards and one of those is our hillside development standards which starts to restrict development as it gets steeper so as we're moving up those foot he'll develop uh foothill areas and this is in that master plan foothill structure form within our master plan um those hillside development standards start to to grab hold a little bit more to say on that density so it starts to really restrict that density and so what we see is sometimes what we'll see is there'll be a request for a little bit higher density because they're restricting and then they're clustering those down within a unit i think where we saw that um would be a good example is the rancho 4 development that was before this uh in over um just off north virginia uh approximately 300 town home units they had a an mf14 zoning on that property but it came into the hillside by the time the hillside it really started to restrict that down and what they did that preserves that natural open space and some of those other things when they cluster so okay so based on if i can summarize in the way that i think i heard so even though the the allowable number of units on a straight two-dimensional map like this may be 64 correct you know the the code even if we make this revision is going to limit how much of that property can actually be developed which would then make the overall number of units more in line with what it would be straight zoned as an sf3 you said that much clarinet yes so we have eight acres we have eight units per acre 64. but with applying our hillside development standards we're really coming down into where we're seeing one unit per point four we're seeing approximately two units per acre would be allowed okay so to that compatibility issue that we're looking at for this specific one the intensity that we see on a map is actually regulated separate from that to make these in in staff's mind the the ability to build on this is to measure it with what the adjacent parcels are even though the zoning is different correct okay thank you thank you mr chair thank you for any discussion maybe like to make a motion mr chairman i just want to put clarification from legal if we're looking for as we saw a separate motion for master plan and zoning or rolled into one like is in our staff report think the recommendation was to have separate motions on both the master plan amendment and then zoning okay thank you thank you mr chair just wanted to thank you [Music] mr chairman i did want to just make one comment um because we did receive a lot of public comment on on this it relates to this item some a lot of people address the master plan amendment and zone change too um you know i just want to respond to that on the record um you know it does present a concern really anytime that you know we're proposing any sort of development on a hillside and sort of the the edge of the city essentially here i mean to really because we're right up against the city boundary um but you know i think the decisions regarding the you know annexing this property and then looking at the this map and that one that was shown earlier about the showing the development in this area you know i think it's really a compelling um image that this is really just a piece that's completing that puzzle of development that's been planned for this area for a while now um so it helped me frankly to kind of zoom out and be able to see that a little bit more because when you do look at it just on its face and you know it's kind of adding to some development in this area it's easy to you know potentially get worked up about it about it but um uh i just wanted to to put that on the record that you know looking at that compatibility con uh finding it did help to see see it in that bigger picture and i can make that finding thank you mr chairman thank you one more question to that and grocery gower's comments reminding me brooke if you uh can um is there any i i'm looking at the the map here and i saw the boundary for the city of reno is anything in those areas that aren't colored here are we in a situation where the adjacent properties are part of the sphere of influence or are those purely county properties that aren't currently under any city of reno anticipated annexation so those are all those surrounding properties are within the sphere of influence so they under they are under the city of reno jurisdiction uh they could annex in the future if they you know with the adjacency and the uh annexation standards that are required okay that really we see that sphere of influence going all the way east to the washoe county line and then going a little bit further um south in this area all right so as a part of so what we're seeing here yes we are at the edge of the city of reno but if that adjacent parcel wanted to do any development it actually gets reviewed by the city of reno because it's under the sphere of influence correct and they could they could it would be under our jurisdiction to review that then additionally you know if they decided to annex then we would go through this master plan zoning map process and and determine what the appropriate master plan and zoning would be at that time okay but none of that is a part of what we're no current currently this is the edge of the city of reno um as far as what has been annexed into the city of reno okay and that we would service and provide those additional services utilities in that okay thank you thank you mr chair thank you mr munoz uh yeah thank you chair um that was actually where i was going to go with my next question the sphere of influence and what's going on there and really in reno especially in north valleys we're out of places to build and with this still being in city limits um listening to all the concerns and everything that we got from from the emails and and the messages it's a very short-term um portion of that entire area that eventually be built out because there are just nowhere else to build here eventually we will move out that way um and so uh like mr gower said it is pretty easy to make the findings for that because it is just completing the piece of puzzle there so i'm a complete agreement with you do we have a motion mr chairman i'll make the motion in case number ldc 22-0048 dp to master plan and zoning amendment based upon compliance with the applicable findings i move to adopt the amendment to the master plan by resolution and recommend that city council adopt the master plan um are we doing this as one motion carl no we're going to be two so okay all you have to do is just say subject to the performance review by the trucker models truckee meadows regional planning commission and we'll do a separate one for the zoning thank you thank you um yep master plan subject to conformance by tmrpa we have a motion do we have a second mr chair mr johnson i'll second that motion and i can make the findings for that great thank you all those in favor say aye aye aye any opposed okay the motion carries unanimously we're gonna move to the second motion thank you mr chairman um for the zoning map amendment same case number ldc22.0048 based upon compliance with the applicable findings i move to adopt the amendment to the zoning map amendment and recommend that the city council do so as well subject to can no that's not subject to conformance by trpa so we'll just end it there great thank you thanks mission oh go ahead sorry mr munoz beat you to it you did uh we have a motion in a second all those in favor say aye aye aye any opposed okay the motion carries unanimously uh we'll now move on to uh item number 4.6 which is ldc22-00082 which i think is related so john if you want to leave us oh brother thank you thank you uh chair of alto challenge for the record uh representing the applicant dolan properties too so in summary this is a tentative map for eighteen townhomes and conditional use permits for fills greater than 10 feet the cuts part is not kicked in it only fills cluster development hillside development and then a minor deviation as noted in the staff report and of course we know where the site is located south of the palisades project and just down the hill and south of the canyons project that one you know it's easier on the eyes we talked about that big picture map i would like to show out on this one is again the canyons a little bit to the north canyon's edge the tumwa tank and then the palisades for reference there's the map that we talked about with the footprints of the approved projects such as duplicate to the one i showed on the overhead so here is the project concept you can see that road that was stubbed out years ago in the palace aids that provides the access with a access easement that was granted to this property owner at that time annexed in 2007 as i believe brook mentioned the concept is environmentally sensitive site design with respect to grading and clustering uses the flatter part of the sites i'm going to get into a slope map that you can see that we tried to be really diligent on managing the placement of the house footprints and the placement of the road cluster with townhome product again that gives us a the best way to manage the way we're using two acres of an eight acre site or two point two six acres we preserve the stand of trees you can see them on here i'll get to them in a better map really important to the environmental considerations in this process and you can see a lot of dots to the south of the property and the south of the water tank there minimal grading needed for the road and then at this point why are we here today it's because 15 years later we have the key elements of backbone infrastructure in place the last one was the water tank that did a discovery that included this property these 18 units plus canyons plus canyon's edge and so that's obviously a key piece of public infrastructure that's needed to uh to to go further down the road with planting so we now have water that's in place at least the plan for it roads and sewer of course the capacity capacity has already been demonstrated uh to accommodate these 18 lots there it is in zoom um see again you can see the stand of trees that's on the south end of the property and then you know expands over east south of the water tank important consideration there's very few trees that are being disturbed in the way that we have this site design and the way that we have this graded and then you can see the lines on the other side the downhill side of the units of course that's where we have the walls um on the other side of the town onions there's the slope map you know what better tool than that it's it's pretty fundamental right it says where do we want to put lots and where we want to put road and we've concentrated almost entirely to that flat area of the site we did meet with freno fire department on this by the way so we have the cul-de-sac that ends typically we try to actually load lots on cul-de-sacs they're very livable they're very desirable by homeowners it simply doesn't work here so it ends up being a turnaround done to their satisfaction with the single means of access parking one side and then fire sprinklers in addition for fire access i think this is very helpful if you look at how tight the light the light green area is to the road and how tight it is to the footprint of development that's that's the easiest way for me to understand what we're doing with regard to grading it's not running down the hill it's not running up the hill it's very tight to the footprint and so um you know it just shows that we're basically following contour lines parallel to the tumwa road and then come into the site and as we shown on the st the slope map the um it fits it fits very close to the topo as it's laid out this has been unique we shared this with you in the canyons edge project and it's important here as well so we have the purple line that shows the horse fencing we've worked with tracy wilson of i think let's wild horse connection we actually met with her and the applicant and staff to define where the fencing is going to go and where this new gate standard this has been adopted in the pud of which the commission acted on recently and so now we have a pedestrian passenger crate in the green triangle the vehicle gate with a cattle guard as detail be this stubs right at the north end of the property and then the locked emergency horse gate is detail c that would be on the north end and then two of them as appropriate done to i believe to the satisfaction of the of the wild horse advocates um this has been a huge political issue and a huge community issues you guys know here and we think we have a pretty good handle on it there's the gate details and a little more standard a's the pedestrian pass through b again is the vehicle gate with the cattle guard and c is the uh locked emergency horse gate and with that i think that's all i have i'd be glad to get into this discussion about density basically we have you know as brook talked in the zoning 2.26 acres times eight that gets us to the 18 the rest is done in open space very much environment environmentally sensitive site design is what drives it all so i'll leave it at that and thank you very much wait for questions thanks john brooke again good evening brooke oswald associate planner with development services let's go the case before you ldc220082 db2 once again this is approximately an 8 acre site we're looking just up from damani ranch there as we we previously went through the request uh for this is um request is for a tentative map conditional use permit and a minor deviation now minor deviation is a little new to this this group this is normally something we do administratively we did uh discuss this and i'll go into it a little bit more detail in my presentation we discussed this uh with the applicant they were open for transparency to bring it before this body and have this body make that decision so that we're not coming back and changing density later after the fact after we've seen the tentative map there there is that associated master plan and zoning map that was both recommended to move to city council and then the key issues we're looking at is that site building design grading and protecting the environmental features once again just coming a little bit closer we are just under the the d there just to the right we see the water tank largely undeveloped land around that the palisades project site uh to the north and west so once again we just went through the zoning this is all the determinate on this zoning being approved so we are working on the sf master plan amendment and then when we look at the zoning we're going to be working with that sf-8 zoning map amendment as we look at the project itself what they are proposing is to cluster 18 town home units they're using rockery walls on that lower section and upper section those are six foot rockery wall lifts they're uh similar to what we're seeing throughout palisades as they come up and start to tear us up um they are required through the conditions of approval to use neutral colors um there will be permanent open space it's approximately six eight acres of the the entire site will be uh for open space that will be accessible to the public maintained by the hoa and then we are looking at that minor deviation so a minor deviation uh allows us to modify our design standards and requirements uh by up to 10 percent and so what they have chosen to apply it to in this situation is our hillside development standards so this uh doing the hillside development calculations would allow for 14 units with that modification allows up to the additional four units modifying a design standard within code which they are allowed to do by the minor deviation staff did review that we felt that the overall impact of those four units was minimal we're not seeing additional traffic we don't feel that there's a highly visible impact with it adding those units and then really with that clustering it's using that land more efficiently to bring those units in additionally that townhome project has a very small footprint so we're able to tie that in really really tight so that density isn't as impactful as we'd see maybe a five thousand eight thousand square foot lot going in there with the home and how they'd grade and fencing and then additionally we have that at open space which we're not going to be uh see fence where we would in a private situation it's just coming in a little bit closer on the site a little better photo of of the number of trees existing trees that do exist uh there and will be maintained that's one of the benefits that we see in that foothill area and some of those policies that we push to do is that clustering helps to preserve those natural areas and you can see a number of trees are being um preserved in that quickly going over that overall fencing plan we're looking at this is looking at the pud fencing plan that we just did and i and i'm showing this just because um we went through an extensive process with the horse advocates on this of where the fences should be but really we've learned a lot and a lot of that is learning about gates learning about vandalism is probably one of the biggest things we face on the virginia range the destruction of the gates the destruction of the fences and so um really we work to help get that enhanced fencing and gate standards through that canyons pud and then we've applied that to this particular situation as john outlined we have those at enhanced fire standards those are the buoy standards that are applied we've seen those on ventana ridge rancho 4 with signage additionally sprinklers will be required in these 18 units and they will be the cul-de-sac itself is the emergency turnaround that will be painted red and posted no parking on that we have requirements for some wildlife management plan they need to reach out to end up endow and provide make sure that we are meeting all the requirements and and any concerns are being addressed through their development they're preserving the existing trees as i mentioned and then additionally we're using water wise landscapes we're requiring all that be water wise in their landscapes there are additional standards to uh within our code for the proximity to that virginia range to limit turf and some other things in this area so just showing that side of that but here uh once again going through these gates i think what is really unique that we're seeing now is is starting to get um pedestrian passage gates in there that don't have to be opened so they're either where you walk around or they call them a kiss gate and so the gate is always closed no matter which way you go and we're hoping that will help keep some of the fences from being left open also destroyed we've gone up to a much more sturdy build of any sort of vehicular gate a lot of what we've been putting in are the the standard green panel gates and what we're finding is either their people are running through them or they're just pushing up against them and knocking them over because they don't want to get out that this situation will help to prevent that additionally we'll have signage of nrs standards and other standards on those gates so it's very clear those have the standard cattle guard with the hoof guards for the horses underneath that additionally we're putting in additional six foot fences to help there's a couple places located in case the horses do get down in the suburbs that they're able to move those up and get them safely back up on the virginia range so it also should be noted in our just recently with the canyons pud there were additional verbal agreements by the applicant of the canyons pud on that the eight homes and uh the dolans which is the virginia 40s that they've come in with some other agreements that they are working with the horse advocates to provide some additional discretionary or diversionary feeding areas working with them to help secure some water and some other things so that the goal is to move those horses further up the range and provide that safety both for the horses and for the public so moving down the uh the tentative map conditional finds that compatibility i went over we do comply with the master plan rmc and nrs public service utilities are available or or are planned in the area and then we provide that open space and hillside constraints were addressed i would leave you with two motions today just because we do have that minor deviation that on there is a little different so there's the initial tentative map that would approve for those 14 homes and then that minor addition would or that minor deviation would allow for those additional four so with that i'll leave you uh with these motions and available for questions thank you thank you very much uh we'll come back to the board or to the commission for disclosures we'll start with commissioner johnson thank you mr chair commissioner johnson uh received and read emails and spoke with the athens representative commissioner taylor same disclosures my button's not working commissioner dracula same disclosures commissioner munoz read and read emails thank you commissioner gower received and read emails previously visited the site and spoke with the applicant's representative uh commissioner velta was saying disclosures public comment uh michelle to even your request to speak forms we did receive correspondence for this item there were 36 total and all-word opposition we did not receive any voicemails and it doesn't look like anybody on zoom wants to do public comment and we don't have any requests to speak forms either thank you would anyone the public like to speak being none will close public comments come back to the commission for questions of the applicant or the staff or comments mr chair mr gallant um brooke or john i'm so we got 36 comments in opposition they range from traffic to horses to you know general environmental considerations can you address a few of those brook certainly and i think in my presentation i think i addressed the horse situation so those horses are currently diversionary being fed right there at the the water tank um the um working with the department of agriculture the horse advocates have an agreement they will be moving those horses and diversionary feeding them up the hill and so we feel that the fencing and that that maintenance of the fencing by the hoa in perpetuity helps to protect that fence line and our public um the horses are are are still going to be protected but they are going to be moved and that that's for the safety of the public and also for the safety of the horses themselves um as far as when we look at the wildlife up there uh the pud the canyons pud has a they're gonna be doing a big management plan and looking a little deeper on some things additionally we'd assume that a lot of that information is going to come to here there is one condition in there that does require that they reach out to endow which is the nevada department of wildlife and they are working with them to make sure they're addressing any concerns they may have on the site um [Music] let's see we so we had some environmental the trees are being maintained in that area so we are looking to preserve those trees that are there as far as some of those visual impacts we have that that the condition of of of the rockery walls which will minimize overall grading and impacts there they also are are going to be within a color neutral color palette and landscape so we are providing that additional buffering in that area the conditioned the buildings or structures will have to be done in a neutral color to help them blend in and be more be more sensitive to to view sheds and some of those things as we look at traffic and some of those impacts the minimal with the 18 units we found that it was minimal impact on the overall road structure mike michelle is here he can speak more if you want to go more into the traffic but it was found to be with the 14 units found to be minimal and the additional four did not really change any impacts that we've we found in that the utilities are close in place and tellurium just will be brought up and then the water tank and water security rights will come through the tank that is already approved through the canyons pud how does the project address wildland urban interface consideration certainly so there are a number of conditions within this that that we are and that's and that's a big concern as we look at a fire in this area so staff did sit down we worked with a fire marshal trey palmer on this specifically and and um looked at uh the roadway access the getting up to the roadway access one of the big things we're seeing in this is that sprinklers of the building themselves to prevent that and get out but there will be those defensible spaces those will be the requirement of the hoa that they have to certain materials that they can use in the structures the landscape and how that will be not only implemented but maintained additional additional signage is going to be required within this that we have in there that that says look this is a dangerous area please be careful you know and some of those so there's a number of uh there's probably there's one condition but it has probably seven eight parts that kind of go in detail of how we we do that and that is uh that's that's through the state fire marshal and and those those rules and conditions will be applied to this project last question i know this is a tough one and i think you've been asked it before by commissioner villanueva but we have a finding that talks about housing affordability and this came up in some of the comments from the community [Music] obviously the price point for these houses i would suspect is not what we can would consider affordable housing how from your perspective can we make that finding regarding housing supply including affordable housing for this particular project certainly and these are these are all challenging right everyone that we we come in and affordable housing is is something desperately needed within this community we're not going to see it hillsides are hard to develop on they're expensive to develop on and it's probably not a product type that we would anticipate uh that that would um there is no condition we are seeing conditions on other puds where we put it in the pud that that we've done um for a charitable donation on that that's one way that we've seen that done we don't currently have it on this one it is 18 homes we see it's a minimal impact but um there there is that there is that challenge of how do we do it and that that is one of the reasons we efficient use of land is one way we do that right by providing um providing more homes or the ability to build more homes hopefully what we what we would like to see is people being what we're seeing is people aren't being able to move up and so people get stuck in a housing type which restricts other people moving up and so i mean there it is such a complex uh thing of how uh affordable housing and how to approach that but in this particular case we didn't address it head-on like you we've seen in some of the puds and other other elements okay thanks brooke thank you mr sherman thank you mr chair um john a couple questions for you if you would please um so one of the questions that actually i asked during the last presentation when we were looking at obviously where this site sits in the city of reno where the site sits in terms of potential you know additional annexations and everything else and as a part of the findings or excuse me as a part of the discussion on both of these was talking about concurrency management talking about i think you even mentioned it where utilities are now to the point where this site is viable from a development standpoint i guess my question is is this site being developed as if it is at the end of the line or is this being set up for you know as potential stubs and the potential access to move beyond where we're at i mean if we you know we're we're looking at questions about the we we're looking at questions about the virginia range so we're we're at the edge um but are we looking at this as you know from a utility development standpoint it's the natural termination utilities are terminated here we're running a water line out there that feeds these units and nothing more or is the intention that this is you know kind of going to some of those public comments that we've had is this basically just a stepping stone moving forward in my opinion there's no physical ability to stub off of anything on this roadway network i'm talking about from where that stub was done in the in the palisades project a stub with intention to serve this and an easement to go with it there's no ability physical ability and plus we've capped it with putting a cul-de-sac at the end there's no hint of any stub right plus it's all of the as i discussed in the master plan amendment zone change discussion it's the end of annex land there's a new day for annexation in reno that requires a fiscal study to prove that you make fiscal sense so those routine annexations no longer exist when you're getting into land that's very inefficient and costly it has to make sense fiscally for the city which is a key decision now as far as the physical limitations go this is the end my second question is to follow up on on where commissioner gower was going um this is a housing type that when we look at this overall area is a little unusual i mean we're looking at a smaller footprint a smaller development here and i think there was some public comment that came in about the inapplicability of attached or town townhome units in a single family neighborhood we've heard some good comment tonight about you know clustering the development and limiting the footprint but how would you respond to the the commentary or the criticism of this as a housing type in what has been predominantly a single family neighborhood area single family attached it might be as expensive as any project in the area and i think there's just a perception in public i'm sure of it that if you attach units you're somehow affecting the quality of neighborhood or the quality of housing that's what they think i mean people see attach and they think it's multi-family and they draw some conclusions so i think in terms of i mean this is all driven by environmental site design right as you know and we have i looked at master plan policy today under guiding principles under foothill development cluster development diversity of housing product these are the what we have oh innovative site design with what's wrong with a single family attached next to single family detached 270 feet down the hill and and by the way the market side of this and i know you know this commissioner johnson is um mr dolan he's a numbers guy he's looking at partnering with you know partnering with a builder on this and i mean there is enormous demand for this product today enormous demand very efficient yards there is basically no yard space right it's a patio or a balcony uh you know you come and go as you please not not a lot of maintenance and and very respectable product that is envisioned for the property okay so and i think you answered my question kind of at the beginning this is still a single family residence it's just it's still a single family residence that's expensive and actually you answered my last question which i was going to ask to brooke which was master plan findings in the foothill neighborhood i had had kind of looked at a number of them that were there and and i think you touched on that as a question from that standpoint so um thank you mr chair thank you thank you thank you mr appreciate it uh john you can say it probably maybe brooklyn talk about it uh obviously saw the horse fence and everything we're doing there that's all well and good and that kiss me gate i like um are we connecting or enhancing any trailway systems uh east of the property we don't know if there's any connections at all we have there's we're not disrupting any and we do have that gate right that serves three purposes so we do have that connectivity so the people there are they're able to connect to the trailways obviously and i didn't know if we were enhancing in any way but i know that's not your problem it's all off it's all off site right so you just do your part on connectivity okay yeah thank you commissioner taylor thank you mr chair couple questions i'm not sure who it is best for maybe we'll start with brooke just because i like your socks thank you very bright orange socks so this side is eight eight acres correct the buildable or the project is one and a half acres is that primarily because that's uh where you can build on is about one and a half acres of it i think this is coming in many ways so they have as john uh product showed the the slope map that's showing that green area and that this development is really located within that green area and the roadway sort of follows the contours up that's part of it the other is our hillside development standards which are going to require a certain amount of open space and they're going to limit the the amount of units and so they've really tried to use the site in a way that they're they're meeting those hillside standards and they're also trying to bring the units into the most developable portions of land and minimize the impact they have on those steeper grades do you know the length of the road the new roadway that needs to be built how long that is approximately i know the length off hand it's about you mean the entire length yeah from where it ends currently to where it needs it's about uh let's see the on-site portion like where we start the house about 600 is about 1500 feet total this road is about 1500 yeah the entire length to the end of the bowl okay and that is um part of the 79 parking spaces is that did i read that right yes right so you have there's 18 units in the 79th street there's street parking that's going to be for public access to the the adjacent land that was the idea there yeah yeah okay um [Music] okay i think that's i'll save it for just okay thank you if i can just clarify that on that on that parking so what we have is four units per or four parking spaces per unit so we have two in a garage two in a parking space we have 19 will be provided along the roadway so it's not 82 provided along the roadway for this each home is is is parked sufficiently uh to provide parking for their and then we have additional street parking which we'd anticipate with those those uh kiss me gates or pedestrian access skates and some of those that we'd see the public being able to park there and use those trail systems or other open space in that area okay i did have one other question with this road is there any impacts to the homes from headlights or anything like that of people using it you know from the orientation of this roadway it's really that extension of tellurium that was stubbed out to to access this and so we're not anticipating everything's kind of moving up the hill we don't see anything going into anyone's backyard they're up at such a height by the time they reach up to the cul-de-sac where they turn around that they're above they're well above the homes be below them so we don't anticipate any uh direct headlight impact on existing residents okay thank you thank you mr chair thank you any further questions or discussion mr jekyll uh just general discussion and into the point of you know real estate the cost of the home and the desirability uh in my professional opinion i think this is a great product for that uh i think a lot of people who are living in apartments in south damani do want to move up or want to gain you know their own ownership and this is a good step for it it is definitely not going to be in the affordable segment but it is a good step up and sometimes even people even move down to a product like this and giving you more options there if you like south meadows and damani and you're in a 3-2 and it's 1400 square feet but you no longer need that much and want the you know the ability to have low maintenance this is good potentially a good product and let you stay in the neighborhood you want to stay in so i professionally see that as a pretty solid project great thank you for that feedback any other discussion i have i have a comment please i think i think it's a great product um when i look at the map just looking at it and i think a comment was made um is this the last of it is this the stub to me when again i just look at it i think the stub was 1500 feet back on this road there it just seems completely um like a development that shouldn't shouldn't be there if there's it's just like a an island kind of out there and i'm looking at the findings for cup two and three and then also the tentative map finding h with the land development cape uh sorry comparability that's not the right word but it doesn't it doesn't seem to match to me um that's just my those are my comments looking at it i mean there's it's like like i said there's if you look at just the road from where it starts and where it needs to go to get to these 18 homes it seems out of characteristic when i look at it i mean i like the product i just i'm not sure that this location i can understand it probably not the best way to explain it but that's right matt thanks mr chair commissioner johnson i'm actually going to respond to that because that's an interesting it's an interesting observation and as a part of discussion i would say that my my initial reaction when i looked at this was probably very similar to yours in terms of looking at the site plan and seeing um where we were coming in and how far we were coming in in order to get to the developmental area um and that was so that was my initial comment but that's when and i appreciate commissioner gower's questioning and looking at this from a bigger picture because to me what we're seeing here is actually very similar to the discussion that we had about the canyons project just to the north of here which does have a mix of different housing types it does have roadways that seem to kind of meander through the the site area and it in my initial review didn't seem really to to fit because i think i was picturing the land use cat you know pattern that we're seeing adjacent to that that's not up the hillside so then i started to look dig a little better deeper into it and some of the questions and and presentation that became appear in terms of that site is within the city it was annexed it was contemplated when the roadway network was put in with a stub to go out to that point and the development on there is unusual as it looks with the rest of the sort of two-dimensional development it is actually doing what i think some of our findings are asking for so when i look at it for that you know the the tentative map and it's looking at at basically finding h which is the physical land characteristics for flood plain slope and soil this is actually an appropriate way of dealing with that and the idea of going with this attached single-family clustered development is the proper way to develop in an area that you know in 2007 was contemplated as a logical expansion to the city so my initial reaction i think was exactly where yours was where it just seems a little bit out of place there but the more i started to think about how this fit into it and and trying to understand it in the greater picture of moving beyond this point and to john's comment about it being at the end of you know the end of the line was more a question of really is this is this the next step in providing access up the hill and it's not it's it's landlocked it has a you know utility thing to the edge of it it has uh unincorporated area with no access uh to the south so it really is that final build out and it's being done in the way that makes in my mind maybe the most sense in terms of how to do that so i definitely appreciate where you're coming from because i was there too as i started to look into this but the more we've had these questions presented and responded to i've i've come around to seeing this as really an applicable way to build out on this site in that area and meetings a lot of those you know requests that we have for foothill neighborhoods in the master plan so i definitely see where you're coming from but and so my explanation as to how i got there was that little five minute diatribe so uh thank you mr chair i'll turn it over for the rest of the discussion thank you commissioner johnson mr mcgowan thank you mr chair um that i wasn't going to bring this up until requests for future agenda items but um to the point of it being the end of development in this area so this this expansion was contemplated in the early 2000s and it was the vision of building out this area and i think we're seeing the completion of that vision that was you know in someone said you know the dolans um 20 years ago i really think that the planning commission needs to be involved in conversations if there are conversations about the next 20 years annexation of future lands in this area and elsewhere in the city because i think what we're seeing here and elsewhere is the realization of of that development that growth boundary regional planning calls it the trucking meadows services area it's that you know tier two boundary um we look at these things in a certain way from a planning perspective and for um the planning commission to be sidelined in discussions about annexation is just it's completely inappropriate i mean we're the body responsible for implementing the master plan so how can we effectively implement the master plan if we're not involved in decisions about the future 20 30 40 years of the city so please let us be involved to the city please let the planning commission be involved in those conversations because it's so relevant i mean and and we have the information we have the um the the background we have the master plan that we put together to inform those decisions it's a to john's point it's a fiscal consideration and it's a a planning consideration so i want to put that on the record i know it's a little bit outside the scope of this agenda item but i feel like it's something really important as we look at this kind of last puzzle piece in the puzzle that was started long ago thank you thank you do we have a motion mr dracula mr chair thank you commissioner dracula trying to make a motion in the matter of case number ldc22-00082 dp2 based on compliance with the applicable findings i recommend that planning commission approve the tentative map conditional use permit and minor deviation subject to conditions i can make all the findings you have a motion do we have a second mr chair just a point of clarification i think that staff wanted the minor deviation broken out as a separate motion okay would you like to withdraw your motion so i guess i would put back to the motion or if he's willing to pull that out and make the same motion yeah no i'm willing to pull that out restate the motion based on that i would second that and i can make all of the findings okay so we have a motion on the table to approve the tentative map and the conditional use permit subject to conditions all those in favor aye aye aye aye aye any opposed nay okay motion carries five to one uh commissioner jack what would you make to make another motion you got it no matter case number ldc22-0082 dp2 based on the compliance with the applicable findings i recommend the planning commission approve the minor deviation subject to condition and that can make all the findings we have a motion do we have a second mr chair commissioner johnson i will second that motion and i do appreciate the explanation from staff on that it seems like a pretty complicated little calculation that we went through so i appreciated both the explanation and the description and the staff report to that end so a second that made the findings thank you we have a motion in a second all those in favor say aye aye all opposed nay thank you uh motion carries five to one uh good luck with your projects thank you thanks brooke okay we'll move to agenda item number five jason i believe you're giving us a pc training good evening commissioners jason garcia-labou planning manager for the record um this is a relatively shorter presentation about five to ten minutes seven slides our new tech person over there if i could have her bring that up [Music] michelle there you go such a good photo okay before i started um kind of a discussion on our staff report process and and kind of how we process development projects when they come into our department i really wanted to give a big thank you to our staff who's now all gone but uh you know i really couldn't do it without nathan brooke grace joey and leah our presenters and they'll watch this tomorrow so just giving them a shout out so um michelle could you go to the next slide please so i really wanted to give kind of a brief presentation and overview of our application process that involves kind of our project processing it's you'll see kind of a big picture of the the process there and then as part of that also kind of how we build a staff report and then really how do we get into the analysis and kind of develop those findings and that's really been a topic of conversation at the commission on how to how do we get to our conclusions so hopefully just a couple minutes on focusing on those items next slide please michelle so as far as our application process typically with the pre-planning process through our planning department we have two different paths one comes before your commission that's a 65 day process so you can't read anything on that screen but that's essentially all the different steps that we go through as part of that process our intake week is a three-day turnaround and we do it to the second and fourth mondays or of the month and our planning techs shout out to heather over there put together our drm is what we call it but it's that development newsletter that comes out via email that identifies those pro projects so um many of you are probably aware of this but just for the members of the public that watch this the processing and procedures of a lot of our application projects are really defined by both nrs so it's our state law as well as title 18 and title 18 actually has some very specific measures that we look at when we go through as part of processing you'll notice notice this when we write the in the staff report as well so um i want to make a point to say that we really work closely with the applicant our staff have a staff applicant meeting and they go through and look at the design and the compatibility and how it kind of jives with our code our master plan and other policy documents and as part of that a lot of the times when that product that final design comes before the commission we've had a lot of conversations so we try to make a point of that when we've done that just so that your commission's aware that we've anticipated some of the issues and and taken that into account but that's why i put project design and revisions on there um next slide please okay i wanted to jump in really kind of into our documents that we utilize as part of this process most of you are familiar with these items but to members of the public we really as our guiding document it's a policy document it's the it's our master plan and that lays out really how we look at growth our policy for development within the city and the sphere of influence which we call soi and just just for reference we just talked about this in the last item but those are areas adjacent to the city limits that reno still has jurisdiction over so we typically will either get a building permit application or pre-planning application in those areas but our master plan really lays out a physical map that shows locations of land uses and just in looking at reno's master plan it's really an in-depth document that goes through it kind of goes another step and it shows compatible uses it shows characteristics i've used one with kind of the pretty photos there but it also kind of identifies compatible zoning so when we look at these different requests for zone changes or other things when we look at these requests for compatibility with the master plan we're looking at this section so i want to kind of emphasize that because we yes we have policy a policy section and we cite those in these staff reports but we also look at that compatibility sheet there those characteristics those zoning districts so they all kind of work together and in addition to that we kind of have other plans i know we reference the structure plan um and area specific policies along the lines of that as well um the easiest way to kind of break it up i'm jumping into now title 18 or the zoning that's kind of a second document so as i mentioned the master plan is more of a policy document the zoning is a more of a technical document that we use when we're actually processing a building permit or a entitlement and when i say that i mean we're looking at the setbacks we're looking at the density we're looking at the development standards the design standards things like that that your commission is very familiar with so so that's hopefully a distinction between the two documents they're very relevant to one another and they work together but they're different so next slide please okay so now the building a staff report um how do we kind of develop that staff report what's the process and um thank you to michelle shout out to michelle because she's a big part of this process um but as far as that goes um when we get an application in we typically will um work closely with the applicant but as you're aware we go through a public process this is set out and we try to when we get those comments in before a commission meeting address a lot of those comments or at least have answers to address some of those comments some of the examples tonight are regarding traffic or fire or whatever the issue is so typically there's two ways that we really receive comments one is through our consultation and that's when we send out that development newsletter at the beginning of the process and through that process we really want feedback so a good example of that was rtc tonight some other agencies the health department or the fire department or police department will provide us feedback on a project so that we can design conditions of approvals to mitigate some of those impacts so it's really important as part of that process we rely upon the experts to help us build and cover those areas that a project might have issues about so in addition to that we really take a look at our table in our in title 18 reference is 18.03.206 and that's our land use table and it goes through and it actually identifies per zone what types of uses you can do so i don't know if any of you are familiar with that but members of the public you can actually take a look at that and you can see all the different uses that are allowed per the zone as well as kind of what planning permit is required so it could be what we call buy right which is just allowed directly to building permit it could be requiring some kind of use permit or other entitlement so and through that process we really again utilize title 18 for those technical standards and that's what we call development standards that's our design standards our improvement standards and other items which can be wrapped into both entitlements like a conditional use permit as well as at the building permit level so a lot of items that may not necessarily come before the planning commission we still have standards regarding sidewalks sewer connection and other things like that so next slide please so as far as our analysis i know this has really come up before a discussion with the commission but when we look at making a conformance determination we look at a number of different areas one is that initial compatibility with the zoning and also the compatibility with the master plan and as far as kind of again two different things but they kind of work together the zoning compatibility would look at that use table and see if if a project will jive with that zoning as far as on the master plan end we kind of take a different type type of approach that's more policy driven you'll see those policy references as well as we'll look at that characteristics table and whether or not the zoning compatibility fits into that as well from that we'll make a conformity determination and the language here is substantial conformance usually staff will look into a project to see if the project overall meets the goals and the intent of the master plan usually citing or referencing um specific policies to kind of back that up now that doesn't necessarily mean that everything in the master plan is going to conform you know a project might not meet every single thing but if it meets the main point of it or a majority of it or it's really consistent with the intent of that that's where you see kind of that the staff finding for that that works in in conjunction really with um the um i have listed on here use description and uh land use category uh guidance and that's on that uh slide that i just had previously that has the pictures on it and it goes through and it actually identifies uh what type of uses are allowed in certain types of land use areas so next slide please so you're probably familiar with this i stole this from one of grace's presentations but we like to give examples to show the commission where we have different uses and how they work with different zonings and then how that impacts those development standards so you'll see this in a lot of our staff reports or our powerpoint presentations we try to really emphasize and be consistent to to lay out all the information on the table for your commission to make decisions so this is kind of the end of my presentation but i really wanted to take a minute to say that staff is really here to support giving the information to your commission to the best of our ability so we help we hope to we hope to help get you to where you need to be and give you the information so if there's anything any items on future agendas or we can get speakers like have been mentioned previously we're looking at having the the school district potentially have somebody come out or occasionally we'll have regional or rtc or somebody come to the commission any of those things that would help with the decision making let us know we're here to help and um i hope that this brief overview has really kind of given you a snapshot into our processes um obviously i didn't go through every technical detail but this is the condensed version at nine o'clock after a full meeting so let me know if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer any requests so i really appreciate this i have a quick question for you and it's just kind of for my knowledge we obviously see everything that staff has made or making recommendations for us to approve and move along how many applications or how many things come in do not get to this point that's a good question it really it really depends on i'm going to say the market really drives the applications we range from anywhere from two to 11 applications of intake so it's very hit or miss you'll notice this by the agendas as well sometimes we'll have seven items in a cup in september you may have two on some of the agendas just kind of what comes in that being said there's a lot of different conditions that we need to address sometimes we originally think a project requires an entitlement and it doesn't so we we had one recent case where that's they've redesigned the project so they were able to withdraw that application other times there's serious concerns and it just never comes to the table it doesn't make it that they end up having to withdraw or it's abandoned we do have certain processing timelines and and do that out i would say to answer your question directly though a majority of those projects do come forward so we work closely um and and you know i would say it's more on the handful that really have some kind of design issue or other thing that can't be mitigated usually there's some kind of compromise to make sure that it works with the code so any other questions or comments thank jason thank you for that presentation i appreciate that i think the one one comment that i would have um and i think staff is doing it but what i would like maybe as a request as you're going through the master plan policies um one thing that i find um that maybe we i haven't seen quite as much is that there's a lot of master plan policies that are general in nature and there are a lot of master plan policies that are specific to either the you know the quadrant of the mixed use area or the type of neighborhood that we're at um and to me it would be i think in terms of having a project that comes forward and maybe i'll just use the the last one today that comes forward that may be a little outside of what we're used to seeing um i think there was a lot of discussion about the foothill neighborhood specific policies to which that that conformed to and i think that at least in the way staff's looking at it i would appreciate maybe the focus as much focus as possible on the the specific aspects of how the project is supporting maybe the master plan policies for that particular area because having 10 or 12 general ones that are almost you know code compliance requirements to me that's a you know that's sort of a given but i would like to you know if it's coming to us for discretionary review it's probably because there are some questions about it whether it's compatible traffic issues you know all those other things so i think um really you know drilling down into not just the overreaching policies because i think we can all agree most of the projects we see are going to fit into some category or substantially do that but you know if we can be specific as to hey here's a here's a project and staff does a great job of saying here's the major things that the major issues that we were looking at if at the same time we can say here's the the specific area specific master plan policies that this is supportive of to to maybe work through that so maybe less of the you know general ideas and more you know specific as to what exactly we're doing that that's sort of the the one thing that i'm trying to get at when i'm you know asking the questions tonight is like how is this specific project supporting these specific policies for this specific type of use so that would be and i do think putting some of that impetus on the applicants would be good too i've seen i go back into some you know i appreciate staff passing out you know when we get the link there's the links to all of the documentation for each one of those projects so i'll go in there and often those applications list their you know what they think are the policies that it supports and so i think you know staff often brings those forward but maybe putting that you know question back to a lot of the development the the developers and the applicants that are coming in to say how is this you know not just hitting all the gp one topics but how is it hitting the you know the foothill neighborhood topics so but again thank you for the presentation thank you for the work you do that's just my one comment in terms of of how we're handling that what is the deadline for you guys to get presentations from the applicants the deadline is noon the day before the meeting okay i did not meet that deadline for the record so i gave her my presentation this morning you get an exemption yeah but she was nice to me great thank you so much for the presentation uh have you seen a slowdown in applications recently this last intake we only had uh two applications um so we'll see what this next intake next week is so thank you uh with that we'll close agenda item number five and move on to number six the truckee meadows regional planning liaison report mr chair i'll take this one after this i'm going to let somebody else take these because as of the meeting last week i am no longer the chair of the regional planning that has been turned over to the county representative so that changes every july uh two items on the agenda last week one was a rezoning of the western village out in sparks and the other was a master plan uh designation of uh industrial land use i think we might remember that project in mogul on the south side of the freeway that got pulled out of the sphere of influence back to the county was a whole messy situation but ultimately the county put in a zoning request to change it to industrial which was approved so now any development on that site is subject to the requirements for the county in that area so those are the two items the next meeting would be the end of last thursday in august great thank you jason staff announcements okay real quick um at the july 27th city council meeting the canyons edge project uh went ahead and it was approved the second reading of that will be august 10th i think that's why you saw kind of a mixture with the comments with tonight's dp2 items because they're in that same relative area um and then my last comment before we close up there are seven items on the next agenda pretty full um one of those will be title 18 amendments for addressing some areas with packaged alcohol cannabis and then live entertainment so that was just noticed today so it's on the agenda and that's everything from staff great thank you agenda item number eight commissioner suggestions for future agenda items thank you mr chairman um jason if we could um i mean you and i can brainstorm maybe outside of the meeting but what i would like to have is um a presentation about annexation and how the city goes about it would be great but mr chairman a few would entertain us having a forum for a discussion on this as well and more of like a workshop format that's potentially facilitated by staff i i think that would be that would be really worthwhile definitely uh quick one for me uh i don't know well first thank you so much for uh letting me be the chair i really appreciate it i promise to be efficient and uh and do things as well as i can um one of the things that i was recently asking folks is if they have ideas as to how to improve the process i'm not trying to rough on any feathers but i'm just curious on that but one thing that came up i don't know if we can do as a commission but someone suggested a uh i guess like a higher fee to expedite applications and that has to come from the city council obviously but that might be an interesting idea for us if there's any way that we could recommend that or if there can be discussion about that especially if that fee could go towards affordable housing or go towards something that would be helpful it might be a good way to incentivize applications to get here faster and then also generate some money to go towards affordable housing sounds good mr chair i'll piggyback that just trying to understand better or jason if you can help us out on um how we expedite affordable housing projects coming through here where they front of the line get here faster i know that's a very complicated question but kind of the reverse of that i'd love nothing more than to see those you know have a better chance of getting here quicker moving faster it does affect the cost of the project immensely over time so i will just piggyback there great idea great we'll uh close in item number eight uh number nine is there any requests to speak forms michelle there is no public comment for this item great anyone in the public seeing none we'll close public comments uh number 10 adjournment is there a motion so moved i heard a second as well and i heard all the votes you