[Music] All right. This is the city of Reno uh planning commission meeting Wednesday, September 17th, 2025 2025 at 6 PM. Item number one, we will begin with the uh pledge of allegiance. Miss Picotti, please take us away. Item number two, roll call. Madam clerk, David Jockman here. Jacob Williams here. Manny Bera here. Christina Delviar here. Tina Gonantini here. Carrie Roier here. Alex Velto here. We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. Uh before we begin we begin item number three, I will um let everyone know in chambers that uh we will have opportunities for public comment on items 7.1 and 7.2. So if you were here to speak specifically about an item, those are the items for Summit Ridge and the Lumen Data Center. I um encourage you to uh submit your comments during the public comment time for that item. We will now go with item number three, public comment. Madame clerk, it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Um, we have received correspondence for this item that was forwarded to the planning commission and entered into the record. I also have two request to speak forms. Um, first up is David Turman. Please state your name for the record. You will have three minutes. Hey, my name is David Tier. Um, and chairman and members of the planning commission. I'm a adjunct course instructor at UNR uh teaching a introductory course to urban planning. And I just wanted to introduce uh several of the students in the course in the back of the room. Um I felt that this was a good opportunity for them to see u land use uh issues and land use process uh in person. So that's why we're here and appreciate your uh service to the city of Reno as well. Thank you. I believe we have one more uh request to speak for him. Is that correct? Next up, we have Jared Espinosa. Hello, my name is Jared Espinosa. Uh, and I just wanted to bring up water when it comes to your guys' planning throughout the city. Uh, I don't know if any of you have looked for water when you're walking downtown or anything, but to find free water, it you have to walk at least a mile, if not two. And that's hoping that that water station is available. If it's turned off for whatever reason, then you're going to be looking at another one or two mile walk. And in 90 100°ree heat, you're going to be losing a lot more water than you can consume just on that walk alone. So, I noticed that we had a new data center on the agenda item today. I'm not sure how much that's expected to use in terms of water, if you guys have a number on that in terms of gallons. Um, but it just seems that if uh the Romans, the aqueducts that they built 3,000 years ago can still provide fresh drinking water to half of Europe, then we should be able to do something in terms of uh water supply for for our most vulnerable among us. So, thank you for your time. Thank you, Jared. Uh we also have Manny Bera online. U great thank uh thank you so much. This is uh Commissioner Manny Bisera for the record. Just wanted to remind the general public and all others that I believe in about 2 weeks October 1st we do have a joint meeting with city council and planning commission on data centers. So please, you know, put that in your calendars. I believe it's at 10:00 a.m. And I did want to just uh ask Mike if you could help us coordinate with uh city manager Jackie Bryant and others to ensure that it's it's uh an event that's listed on the official city of Reno uh website calendar because I believe all the other events are listed, but I noticed that that one hasn't been listed yet and that might be helpful for folks. Thanks everyone. Madame clerk, do we have any other requests to speak? Uh, no. That's it for public comment. And as far as item number 3.1 goes, do we have any requests to speak in chambers? Hearing none, we will move on to item number four. That is approval of the agenda for possible action uh September 17th, 2025. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting? Commissioner Alto move to approve. Commissioner Dvr second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. Item number five, approval of the minutes for possible action. Reno City Planning Commission meeting minutes from September 3rd, 2025. Uh, can I get a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting? Commissioner, go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner Williams. I'll make the motion. Commissioner Delvi, I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Commissioner Belto, I'll need to recuse. I was not present at that meeting. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries unanimously with one recusal. That is Commissioner Valto. Item number six, staff announce announcements. Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple quick updates from city council. Uh at their last meeting, the council did approve the ADU ordinance that was reviewed by this board with your um changes. That will go to city council next week for second reading. Also, they did vote to not object to the regional planning commission denial of the Stonegate amendment. Um it's our understanding that the applicant will uh pursue an appeal to the regional governing board um through through their their course. Um, next week on city council agenda, the Mount Rose Junction specific plan district that this board voted um to technically deny. It was a tie vote. That will be heard by city council as will the orcrest zoning map amendment which you approved at your last meeting. Um, Commissioner Bera beat me to the punch on the joint meeting that will be on uh the first at 10 10 a.m. And Commissioner Bera, I will reach out to our comm's team to see if that can be added to the calendar. Um, also our regular meeting on the 1st has been cancelled. There are no items scheduled for that agenda. So, we will not be having a regular meeting on October 1st. Those are my announcements. We will move on to uh item number seven, public hearings. So, the first item we will hear tonight is item 7.1, staff report for possible action. Case number LDC25-000040, Summit Ridge Apartments Major Site Plan Review. For this item, we will start with disclosures. We will then go to a staff presentation, um applicant presentation, and then we will have public comment on this item. So, for item number 7.1, we will be begin with disclosures from the commission, starting with Commissioner Valto. Uh, Commissioner Belto, um, I believe I spoke with the applicant's representative, but I may be misremembering that. Um, that's the only disclosure I have. Commissioner Delvi, I have read all of the materials and familiar with the site. Commissioner Gonini spoke with the applicant representative, read and reviewed the materials, familiar with the site. Commissioner Jockman, uh, phone call with the applicant representative and read and reviewed materials. Commissioner Williams read and reviewed the materials and I am also familiar with the site. Commissioner Vormmyer, no disclosures. Commissioner Vera, for the record, uh, read and review the materials and I am familiar with the site. We will now proceed to the staff presentation on item number 7.1. Miss Picotti. Good evening, chair, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Leah Picotti and I'm an associate planner with the city of Reno Development Services. This evening, I'm presenting two applications, but the first one here is the Summit Ridge Apartments. This is a major site plan review. The subject site is located on West 4th Street. Um, coming from downtown going down West Fourth, this is kind of right before you get around that corner that hits the McCarron intersection. The site is uh just under two acres in size. Anybody who's gone up and seen this site will notice that it's severely sloped. Um and it is undeveloped at this time except that there is sidewalks and street trees anticipating development in the future. So it's a nicel looking site. It's just a little bit difficult to develop, which is why the applicant is coming in tonight with a request for a major site plan review uh for fills greater than 10 ft. So, this will be grading resulting in fills greater than 10 ft in depth, which requires a major site plan review. Everything else that you're going to see tonight is in compliance with Reno Municipal Code. So, this subject site is located in the mixeduse suburban zoning district. Key issues that were analyzed by staff were the overall site design, compatibility with surrounding uses, and traffic access and circulation, mostly just because it's on that corner there. So, regarding the overall site design, we're looking at uh like I said, just under two acres of of site area with 1.51 acre development area and almost a half acre of undisturbed area. The grading will result in fills of up to 21 ft in height. This is all going to be done to accommodate a 40 unit multifamily development with the regular amenities you would see with multifamily. The building will be approximately 49 feet in height, provide vehicle parking spaces. The result will end up being somewhere between 45 and 47% of open space and 53 trees on the site. Now that multi-family development is allowed by right within the mixeduse suburban zoning district as well as that height. Anything that exceeds 55 ft in the mixeduse suburban would then require a site plan review. But since this is under it, the development itself does not require an entitlement. Only that grading resulting in fills over 10 feet. Regarding compatibility with development and surrounding uses, uh what we looked at here is that there's primarily residential surrounding this site, mostly common area on the other side of Summit Ridge, but just to the south of this site, there are some homes there. It is important to note that the top floor of this development because of that slope is going to be similar in elevation to the ground floor of that adjacent residence. So, it's not going to be towering over that residence. Additionally, uh, Reno Municipal Code requires a shade study to be provided. Um, and what we ask for there is to see if on December 21st between the time of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., will the shade from the proposed structure shade any residentially zoned lots? And in this particular case, you can see the shade study up there on the right hand side. It does not shade any of those residentially zoned areas. Uh the major site plan review recommended findings are on the board. Basically, staff could make all the findings. It is compatible with surrounding residential uses. The mass grading meets the grading um requirements and hillside development standards. Uh public services are all available. It's surrounded by residential uses. We did put a condition of approval on there to limit the hours of construction to uh that Monday through Saturday that we normally limit to when it's residential. Other than that, um staff was able to make all of the findings and does recommend approval of this. The recommended motion is on the board. I'm available for questions and Stacy's here with a presentation as well. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Much of my presentation mirrors Leah's um so I will try to be brief and concise. Stacy Huggin for the record with Wood Rogers representing the applicant in this project. Uh I'm going to skip over where it's at and also the zoning. Uh again, as Leah mentioned, we are here um tonight looking for an approval for major site plan review for grading uh resulting in fills over 10 feet. As Leah mentioned, oop, sorry, got a little um gunshy there. We're um this project has fills up to 21 ft. You can see that that area in the blue on the exhibit on the screen there. Um that whole area is going to be filled. Um there's it's a when I show you the topography uh here on the slope map, you'll get some idea as to why those fills are 21 ft in depth in that area where the building is. Um you can see that we were very sensitive in the design of this site to stay out of the slopes that are over 30%, that's that very dark red area. We really did our best to um mitigate and place the building in an orientation that preserved that area. um not only just because um we you know didn't want to touch those steep slopes, but we think it's a nice benefit to keep that undeveloped um as this project moves forward. Um going back to the grading again, the total disturbed area is one and a half acres. Um the rest of it about a half an acre remains undeveloped. Um the fills are up to 2100 or sorry 21 feet in height. Um, we have a import on this infill site of 2500 cubic yards of cut and 11,000 cubic yards of fill for a net gain of 8,500 cubic yards. We do have a couple areas where there are retaining walls planned. There will be a retaining wall along the um souththeast edge of the building which is actually the building serves as the wall on that side. It's not a separate wall. It's the actual the building. And then there's also a retaining wall located at the south end of the building um that is there to to um retain from a um grading perspective. Any of the areas that are disturbed by the grading that are not landscaped as a part of this project will be receded so that it blends with the natural vegetation in this area. Um I just wanted to show you a couple of the renderings of the buildings so that you have an idea of what this will look like. Um this is what it will look like to the north facing uh Summit Ridge Drive. Again, the building is approximately 49 1/2 ft tall um to the tallest parapit. There will be three subterranean levels including a maintenance level which is actually um accessed from a driveway further around the corner on Summit Ridge Drive. The main axis is um boy the site is hard to orient but um the main axis would be in the bottom left hand corner of the screen there. Uh call it the souththeast corner. And then there's also an emergency um access drive to the maintenance facility further to the north east. I got my east and west backwards I think today. Uh up in the upper corner of this site. Again, just a couple pictures of the buildings so you can see how they look from all the angles. Uh, and then just to touch on the shading analysis, we also spent quite a bit of time analyzing the shading for this project. Um, in fact, it more than once triggered some redesign for this building and how tall it would be and how it would be oriented on this site. But you can see um from these images here how the building that we're um proposing today does not um exceed the shading allowances on December 21st within each of the windows. That summarizes my presentation. I'm available for any questions that you may have. The architect is also here and the developer is here if you have any questions specific to that. Thank you. Thank you. We will now move into public comment for this item, item 7.1. Madam clerk, I did not receive any correspondence for this item and I do not have any requests to speak forms. Do we have any requests online? I do not have anyone with their hand raised online. Do we have any requests in chambers to speak on this item? Summit Ridge hearing none. We will move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Belto. Uh Commissioner Belto, I'd actually just like to make an additional disclosure I forgot to make earlier. I own a house that is maybe 3,000 ft away. So, I just wanted to clarify that on the record. I don't believe that'll affect my impartiality. Uh, I can be fair and impartial on this project. No questions from the commission. Is is this what I'm hearing or the chair? We're happy to make a motion. Uh would we like to would any commissioners like to have any deliberations before a motion is entertained? I I do have a couple of questions. Please please go. Sorry. Um I think this is I I think it's probably for either of you guys. So Lee, if you want to pop up. Um, if I if I'm looking at the property and then there's a building sort of to the I guess south, that's that's a business, correct? That's not a home. The homes are in the frontish, to the north. Um, for the record, Leah Picotti, the homes are to the south. The homes are to the south. Okay. So, there's a small development of homes and I I want to say it's maybe like 10 homes right there to the south. Okay. Because I'm just trying to figure out based on some of the Oh, yeah. Thank you. Um Oh, I see. So, the south. Okay. So, I guess to the I don't know, southeast. Basically, my question is, will the height of the building at 49.5 impede the visibility of the homes to the south? I don't necessarily know that it matters for the business that's to the uh we don't anticipate that it's going to um impede the visibility. Our engineering team looked at that access point as well as the applicants engineering team and it was a general consensus that this is a difficult parcel to find access on that meets those standards but that was the best place to put it. Okay. And then just out of curiosity and maybe this is for the applicant December 21st what's the significance of doing the shading on that date when that's one of the shortest days of the year. It is. It's the It's the winter solstice. So, it's when the sun is at its lowest portion in the sky and the greatest shadow would be casted at that time. Got it. Thank you. That was all I had. Do we have any other questions from the commission? Hearing none, we will move into deliberations. Would any uh commissioners like to entertain some deliberations? If not, I'm happy to entertain a motion as well. Chair, happy to make a motion. Please proceed. Uh, in the matter of case number LDC25-000040, uh, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the major site plan review subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings. Commissioner Delviari second. We have a first from Commissioner Velto and a second from Commissioner Roire. Uh all those in favor say I. I. I. I. Any any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We'll move on to item number 7.2. Item number 7.2, 2 staff report for possible action case number LDC26-00009 Lumen data center. Uh for this item we will start with disclosures. We will follow the same process as the first item uh that we just heard. So that will be disclosures that will be uh applicant uh staff presentation applicant presentation. We will then have public comment. So the the public comment will come after any applicable applicant presentation and then we will go to questions from the commission. So we will start with disclosures starting with commissionerto. Uh commissionerto familiar with the site received and reviewed uh either correspondence or public comment. I'm not sure how you would characterize it but comments on this proposal. Uh and I believe that is the only disclosures I have. Thank you. Commissioner Delviar. Same. Commissioner Gantini. Same. Commissioner Jockman sought guidance from the city attorney's office and read and reviewed materials. Commissioner Williams uh read the review and the materials and the correspondence from those public comments. Commissioner Roireer, please. No disclosure. Commissioner Bera, for the record, uh read and review materials and I'm familiar with the site. That concludes uh disclosures. We will now move to the staff presentation. Miss Picotti. Thank you. For the record, Leah Picotti. Uh, second case I'm presenting tonight is for the Lumen data center. I know there's been a lot of talk about data centers lately, and I believe that this commission has seen quite a few applications. This one's a little bit different. Let me explain why. So, this particular site is located um in an industrial sort of area just south of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks kind of uh where very close to where the Keystone data center is actually. So, that's the intersection there at Keystone and Fourth that you see up toward the center. So, it's just south of that. This site is a relatively small site. It's about.28 acres and the request today is for a conditional use permit for a data center. Zoning district here is general commercial but you can see that the site is surrounded by industrial zoning on three sides. Key issues that staff analyzed in this request were compliance with Reno municipal code and compatibility with surrounding uses and developments. So, here's why this site is a little bit different. This site was originally developed as a communication facility, perhaps a data center in 1999. Between 1999 and 2006, the previous owner, or maybe two owners ago, did maintain an active business license for a communication an unmanned communication facility. In 2017, Lumen Technologies acquired the site. It has operated continuously since 1999. But in 2025 when we all started talking about data centers, business licensing, our business licensing department conducted an audit and they went in and looked at potential sites that they thought might be operating as a data center, but maybe we didn't have them properly classified because we didn't have the data center use in Reno Municipal Code up until just a few months ago. So, business licensing conducted the audit. They found um a utility license for this. They contacted the owner and Lumen Technology immediately said, "Oh my gosh, we didn't know that we needed this. We thought we had the utility license. We didn't re realize a business license was required." They applied for a business license, but under new code, all data centers require a conditional use permit. We couldn't deem it existing because they didn't have a valid business license. Had they had a valid business license up through the past 12 months, we could have just said it was legal non-conforming and existing and we wouldn't be here tonight. But because they didn't have that business license, that's why we're here tonight. Sorry, I don't think my clicker is working very well. All right. So, regarding compliance with Reno Municipal Code, what you're looking at here is an existing 6,000 square foot building. It has a gated parking area, three parking spaces. It has 15% landscaping, which is what's required in the general commercial. The only thing that's not compliant is that they don't have any ADA parking. And regardless of if they need it, it's required under code. So, we do have a condition of approval on this that requires them to make one of those parking spaces into an ADA compliant parking space. regarding compatibility with surrounding development and uses. This is uh was provided by the applicant and I like it even though it's a little bit small. So what you see in the middle there outlined in yellow is the site. To the north is a vacant lot that's currently being used for staging for the development of the Keystone Data Center. Just to the north of that to the south is essentially a vacant lot. There are two houses there or what look to be like houses, but they're totally boarded up. And when I went back and looked at what those had been, they've been commercial industrial type uses for years and years and years. So long time since they've been residential. Now to the east of the site, we have an existing car wash. And it's a little bit hard to see, so I just put this picture up there. But that car wash does go all the way up to the back of this property. And then on the west side we have a residence directly across located in the industrial zoning district. So at this time we don't allow single family residences in the industrial zoning district. So this is a legal nonconforming single family residence in the industrial zoning district. Now let me back up a little bit. Sorry. This is our new standards for data centers. And basically what this says is that if there's a residential zoning or a residential use, the loading docks have to be screened. And they have to be screened by either another building in between the loading dock and the residential use by a 10-ft masonary wall or uh a 30- foot wide enhanced landscaping area with a three-foot burm, a six-ft tall masonary wall and landscaping design to screen the loading docks from the residential areas. However, these requirements can be modified through the conditional use permit review. So if we go back here and we look at that property, that top picture on the left hand side is essentially taken from standing in front of that residential zone. So you can see that the loading dock is not completely screened from that residential use across the street. So in this particular case, we are asking that the planning commission um approve the existing design and and and wave these conditions for the masonary wall or the three-foot burm or excess landscaping um through this process. All right, data center comparisons. Um, I added this in because and I didn't know it existed up until yesterday, but we have been tracking our data centers and we are looking at that building square footage, how many employees, what the water usage is, and what those energy needs are. So, you can see web, openen, keystone, all significantly larger than this, right? We're talking 6,000 square feet. The number of employees here, the applicants have indicated that it's really an unmanned facility, but there could be like one or two people there if there were an issue. Regarding water usage, this particular data center doesn't use water to cool any of their equipment. The only water that's being used is for landscaping and for the restrooms and essentially that's it. So, when I did the calculation to try to figure out the water usage here, I came up with two. But this morning, um, Angela and Lauren did a calculation and they came up with something significantly less. So, I think we're comfortable saying that at the very most it's a two, but it's probably much less than that. And that goes with the same with the um, total megawws, the energy requirements. It's actually I came up with two, but it's probably actually much much less than that. So, we're confident to say that those two numbers are the maximum the maximum number of water and the maximum megawatts that would be used. I hope that makes sense. All righty. Conditional use permit findings are on the board. Uh basically the purpose of the general commercial is a transition of the city's suburban corridor to a mix of higher density residential, retail, commercial and other employment and serviceoriented uses. There is no new development associated with this. It has existed for 26 years. All the services and utilities that are already existing. Uh is it compatible with the types of surrounding development? Yes, we have commercial and industrial uses. We do have that one residence in the non-conforming non-conforming residence in the industrial zoning district. Um, and staff found that it is existing with no enforcement cases in 26 years. If you look up I'll put in a caveat there. If you look up this property, it does show enforcement cases, but if you actually go in and look, it's on the adjacent um vacant properties and it had to do with vagrant and graffiti and things like that. So staff is able to make all of the findings and does recommend approval. The recommended motion is on the board and I think that the applicant um has a presentation as well. If there's an applicant uh presentation, please proceed. We have the applicant online, so we will get them promoted to a panelist in a minute here. Mario, we will get your um presentation uploaded. You'll just need to let us know when you'd like us to switch between slides. Good evening. I hope everybody can hear me fine. Uh good evening chair and commissioners. Uh my name is Mario Tarrosa. I am with IMAG Corporation. I am representing Lumen Technologies for this conditional use permit. Uh next slide please. um as Leah had uh demonstrated earlier and um I want to thank her for really uh diving into a lot of the data, but this is um we are requesting a approval for our conditional use permit. Um the building license unfortunately was overlooked and uh we are trying to comply with the city's uh current codes and amendments. Um the the building has been operating since 1999 as a telecomun telecommunication gateway building. Um if uh it has not changed since then and we are hoping to uh there are no plans to alter its uh use in any way. Next slide please. Um this slide kind of identifies we wanted to kind of re reiterate um that the electrical usage is under two megawws. Um and as you can see our water usage has reduced over the past three years. So we are this facility is being very conservative in any of the utility infrastructure. Uh the building does operate 24/7, but as Leah had also stated earlier, the there are no there are no personnel that are there at 247. Um personnel is there just in case there's a maintenance issue. Um and so they might be there for a couple hours um just to remedy that any issues that might come up. Uh I think the one thing we do want to really point out that this building really operates 90% of the building operates as a telecom communication hub with only 10% as being really data storage. Um so this is more networking um or for uh conduct um transferring of mobile and cellular lines to other hubs. Um so it hopefully we kind of would understand that this is not a true data center. Um other than that uh I think this kind of concludes what we want to show and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. That concludes the applicant presentation. We will now move to public comment for item 7.2. Madame clerk. Uh, we did receive correspondence for this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. I also have a request to speak form. Tom, if you wanted to provide comment. All right. Please state your name for the record. You will have three minutes. Okay. Uh, Tom Duranti, Dur N. Um, and I would probably go on record as opposed to this project. Um, although it does sound like it's a lot less impactful than what I had originally thought. Um, my concerns are the pictures and the description make it sound like it's all industrial. A block away is a lot of homes. In fact, the home I was born and raised in and still own is a block away. So, I am concerned about the noise. I didn't hear anything about if there'd be hum, you know, from Nature Con conservancy has a lot of studies on data centers and a lot of times they uh have a a low hum throughout the day and night and I didn't hear anything about would there be any noise interference. Um, I was glad to hear that there would not be too much of a water consumption uh or power consumption because I was concerned about the reliability of electricity and the electrical grid in the area. Uh, again, it is it's a large residential area a block away. And then further down is a large uh trailer park, the old Chisum trailer park. Um, so I think those are all things that need to be considered if they haven't already. Uh and then my final concern would be the lot's big, the building now is small, but I am concerned that they may eventually grow in this data center. Um so with that, just wanted to bring those to the attention. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Um I do not have any additional request to speak forms. We do not have anyone in Zoom with their hand raised. Do we have any other requests to speak in chambers? If so, please raise your hand. Okay. So, we have nothing from online, nothing, no more request forms and no requests in chambers. We will now move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Belto, please. Yes, thank you. Um, chair, I have two topics I want to cover in my questions. The first has to do with the the waiver request for RMC and then the second is about sound level. So, I want to tell you that just in case other folks have questions and want to jump in on that, but Lee, I have some questions for you, please. Um, I'll just tell you at the outset, I'm a little concerned about the waiver uh request and I I want to understand what is the standard for us evaluating a waiver request from the screening requirement in code. It doesn't seem like there's a test we're supposed to apply. So I want to know from you how we're supposed to evaluate that. Um, absolutely. And that's a fantastic question. For the record, Leo Picati. So the way that it is written is that you have those three standards and then the fourth standard, which we can pull it up. Kelly, can we pull it up? Um and then the the fourth thing says these can be modified or waved uh with a conditional use permit is basically what it says. So it's not that we're requiring any kind of additional deviation or a variance which would have additional findings. This is just simply that if it's appropriate for if you find that it's appropriate for you to wave these condition these restrictions you can do so. So, sorry, quick followup. Uh, so if if sometimes we see these waiver language and it's like, well, it can't be a special use for them. It can't be unique to them. I'm probably explaining that poorly, but we see different instances where we have a test. Um, so is it your understanding that we have to see say that the waiver itself would comply with whatever general findings and cup findings we're supposed to make? That's exactly correct. There are no additional findings for this particular waiver. You just have to be able to make the findings that are the general criteria and then the conditional use permit findings. And do you have an impression as to why Lumen is asking for this waiver? Uh specifically, they didn't they didn't specifically request that waiver. It's just that in our staff analysis, we found that it did not conform to these standards. So we said, well, it does allow us within code to to ask that those be modified. Of course, it is absolutely under the purview of the planning commission to impose these. Uh, but I think that because the site is already developed, it may cause an undue hardship and limit the compatibility with the existing the existing uses in the area. I don't know that adding a 10-ft wall increases compatibility in this particular case. Understood. And I I wanted to ask the applicant about this, but I'll defer if you have more questions first. Yeah, I just wanted to piggyback on what Commissioner Belveltto was asking. Is it possible to potentially limit and I understand their current usage and they're not going to have a whole bunch of trucks coming and going and loading and unloading, but would it be possible to have to limit hours if they do use the loading dock and and then that way I could kind of get behind not requiring some of these other things. Could we do something like that? Absolutely. So there have been conditions of approval applied on other data centers where we did limit the hours for that load for that loading dock. Um I staff didn't feel that it was necessary to impose that in this particular case just because this is so small and it's been operating for 26 years. Yeah. Yeah, I think my my concern is just longer term if we deem it a data center and we you know don't require some of these things, I' i'd probably like to see some parameters put in place, but I'll I'll defer the rest of my questions now. Commissioner Bisera, please proceed. Great. Thanks, folks. I'll piggy back off of the screening topic right now. Um, hey Leah, when when you when you say that the screening requirement doesn't necessarily meet the standards or expectations based on staff's analysis of this project, could you elaborate on that exactly? Like like what what what are those metrics or or analysis that you specifically look at to make that determination? Because I'm having a hard time with this one. Uh I'm kind of in the middle. I I you know I want to understand why it would make sense but maybe to commissioner Delviard's point too long term you know right now they're saying that they're at 10% uh uh usage as a data center but you know tomorrow it could be 25 or 80% and so forth. So just want to better understand this. Absolutely. So, um I don't know if you can see the screen, but um we have the standards for the data center up on the screen. And what this says is that loading docks and semitr staging areas shall be designed to minimize noise and odor impacts on residential properties. So, it shall be designed, but understand that this is existing. There's there's no design aspect here. Um, so limit o limit impacts on residential properties and shall not be located between non-residential buildings and residential zoning districts or residential uses unless one of the following exist. And this is that loading docks are screened by another non-residential building on the site. Uh, it is that it does not meet that standard. There is no additional building. The loading docks are screened by a masonary wall at least 10 feet in height. That is not existing. We don't have a 10-ft masonary wall in the site. Or the loading docks are screened by an enhanced 30 foot wide landscaped area with a three-foot berm, a 6- foot tall masonary wall, and landscaping designed to screen the loading docks from the residential areas. So when staff looked at this, staff was able to determine that the existing site does not meet any of these three criteria for the loading docks. But again, the fourth criteria here is that the requirements can be modified through the conditional use permit review. Okay? And I do want to remind everybody too that um any expansion of this use would require them to come back. So if if If by some measure and understand too that one of the reasons that staff didn't see an issue with this is that 26 years no complaints, no enforcement complaints. Not one person has said this is a problem. These guys are loading and unloading in the middle of the night. All of this stuff 26 years, no problems. So that's why staff didn't require that. And in terms of expanding that use or increasing that use, if something like that happens, it has to come back before the planning commission and that's why staff feels confident. Okay, that that's that's really helpful, Leah. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions, Commissioner Bisera? I I I do. uh but uh they don't stick with this topic, but if others want to continue with this topic, uh I'm happy to hold back my questions until this topic is covered. Sure. Um go uh go ahead, Commissioner Williams, for the record. Hi, Leah. Uh can you can you play out the expansion requirement for it to come back before us again? What what are the thresholds for that? I don't have the thresholds in front of me, but any expansion um beyond what's approved under the conditional use permit, I think it's 10%. 10% any anything that would exceed 10% expansion would be required. Building use, anything 10% expansion. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Uh I I have one question and then we'll go to Commissioner Velto. So, in regards to what Commissioner Delvr said about hours of operation, the um the cup that we would be granting, if um understanding what staff said about the uh compliance over 26 years or whatnot, could that cup be transferred to another owner or operator and still remain valid with the terms that we would render? Yes. Um, the conditional use permit runs with the land, not the owner. But let's keep in mind, too, that there have been several owners of this property over the past 26 years. And I think inherently this particular site based on the size, the location and how it was developed um really it it it can't really be expanded without coming back to u the planning commission. Understood. Thank you. Um Commissioner Bisera, thank you. Um yes. So, this one's a question for the the applicant or the applicant's representative that's on Zoom, I believe. Um, the question is I I heard you say kind of towards the end that you're not a quote unquote true data center. So, when you say that, I was just curious if you can help us uh understand that a bit better by, you know, what essentially what distinctions do you specifically hold to differentiate your operation from other quote unquote true data centers? Um, sure. Um what what we're trying to to have you guys understand that um a telecommunication gateway building is it is more for telecommunications. It's not for data storage as you would see in a data center. Um so you're not putting anything on the cloud. It's more of uh you know for any emergency response um that that those communications go through these hubs. So it's more for phone and cellular uh communications than it is for data storage. And that's how this building has been operating since 1999. And there are no plans at this time to change or increase the data uh center portion of this building. Um Lumen Technologies has operated this building in this manner and uh would want to keep it that way just you know uh just for how they have their network hubs. I hopefully I kind of explained myself on that one. you you did and actually that's that's very helpful and actually it helps maybe with a followup but not for you but for Leah and you know the the broader staff is like with that nuance or subtlety that was just kind of provided uh for this type of operation Leah would would this be something that would be helpful to be captured in our kind of work in progress data center ordinance that's in code right now you know to help distinguish between these uh lighter usage data centers like this one before us and other ones that are more mid and hypers scale. Um, Leah Picotti, for the record, I I I think if the planning commission wants to look at potentially splitting up that data center versus telecommunication hub, then that's absolutely under your purview. Okay. just just you know I think that this is all kind of a a new land uh or new ordinance and and so a lot of stuff is kind of surfacing that uh is helping us kind of distinguish between the different types of muses. So this has just been really helpful. Um so thank you for that. I do have a couple other questions but um I will hold back unless other folks have some that they would like to throw out first. Uh, Commissioner Ber, we'll come right back to you. Commissioner Velto. Yeah. I have a question for the applicants. Can you hear me now? Yes. Great. Um, so the request for a waiver of the loading dock screening, um, is is that something that you all want? one and two, are you able to build a wall or do screening or is it too difficult or costly? Um, you know, it's a fair question. I think with this this site being existing, um, you know, this was something that we we did not uh think of or investigate. Um, as you can see from the previous pictures, you know, there is uh landscaping that and trees, existing trees that have grown to help um kind of hide that loading dock. Uh, if we add a wall, uh, I naturally, you know, there's costs involved and we would have to I would have to go back to Lumen Technologies to um, discuss this in a little bit in detail. But if we would add a wall, I just don't know. Um, I think there's a residence just across the street. Uh, you know, is it better to look at trees than a 10- foot block wall? Um, you know, again, there is not much foot traffic here. It's a very uh, you know, from trucks and coming in. It's it's very light use. Um we did do a sound study that was uh provided in our application which we did meet um all the sound levels um at night and during the day. Uh so uh we would hope that we could uh wave this condition but naturally it would be at your discretion. And Commissioner Delr asked about uh potential limits on the hours of operation for trucks coming in and out. Is there a a limit that you think would re be reasonable? Um again, I think I would have to uh bring that to Lim Technologies um and get their input. Uh again, you know, these these facilities do not the only time we would have um trucks coming in naturally would be during working hours unless there was a major um failure in maybe in one of the HVAC systems or something of that nature. However, a lot of these buildings do have backup systems which um would allow the buildings to still operate and any replacement of internal systems could probably be done um during working hours. Thank you, uh Commissioner Delvr and then Commissioner Bera. Thank you. Um Mario, this is uh Commissioner Delvr and again just to kind of piggy back off of that and maybe it's a question you also for for the city. Um again part of it isn't just for this it's if this carries on to the next um potential owner. Uh I would like to see some provisions put in um for for those loading docks. And I don't know if there's like if there's an emergency like would they be able to bring a truck into the loading zone or dock if we you know made it from like whatever 10 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. whatever the standard city hours would be. But if there was an emergency then would they be able to leverage that? Am I I'm probably complicating this but Leah Picati for the record. Um, so we could put that condition of approval on there, but I mean we could just play it out. So like let's say that there is a big emergency and they have to get a truck in there and it's after hours and they get the truck in there and this condition of approval is known to the residents across the street and they realize that there's a truck there and it's not supposed to be. So then they call into Reno Direct and they say there was a truck there and it wasn't supposed to be and then Reno Direct forwards it to planning and then we say hey you're not supposed to do that and they go we're really sorry it was an emergency. Got it. That's kind that's that's And again totally totally appreciate that because again I just want to make sure that um if if this ever does change hands and turns into something else um that I just want to make sure that there's not going to be like 247 trucks going through there. So, I'm just trying to make sure that we put conditions in place that would mitigate some of that. I I I can appreciate that. And I I I also think like that this 24/7, so in the general commercial zone, um operation is only allowed between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. And then anything between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. requires a conditional use permit. However, we have a caveat in code that basically says that if that 24-hour use is inherent to the use, like for example, a hotel, you know, or something like that, then we allow them to continue to operate. Now, if this becomes full-blown, like we've got trucks out there and all of this stuff, and they are full-blown operating with lots of people at night, then they'd be violating code anyways. Fair. Thank you. Commissioner Riser. Great. Thank you. Um, hey Leah. So, you mentioned earlier uh some energy usage numbers and so I was curious if you can clarify the meth methodology used to calculate the facilities energy usage because I believe you reported a figure of about 2 megawws but staff cited or reported a lower number. Right. So that's the first question kind of in advance for the second one is um well let's start there and then I'll do the second one. Sure. So um I put two on there but if you look at the screen here you can see that it's generally 1.8 um is is actually what it what it has been for the last three years. Right. But I so maybe maybe clarify this part then you you mentioned that you your numbers your approach was two but Angela and other staffs was lower though like so my question is did you use a different formula or methodology or did you use the same one and you round it up and they just kept the exact number. So the 1.8 is is is pretty fixed. We agreed on that. the the water usage and acreage per foot is where we were a little bit off and um and and that's where we weren't 100% sure because Lauren did the calculation and came up with something around point 2 and I came up with it as two and then at 2:00 in the morning when I was thinking about this I realized that I may have flopped the numbers so it should have been it's actually closer to 0.5 which may be correct but I didn't have a chance today to run that by Lauren so I'm just confident in saying that it is less than two. Okay. No, that's fair. I appreciate you know just the the thought process there. So um so I guess I my my followup there then would be you know as as we work towards a more comprehensive data center framework and account for all these little nuances with you know uh smaller data center uh uh applications like this one and larger ones. I is staff considering a more standardized approach to reporting evaluating usage just to ensure that we have consistency across these different applications and and among staff. My understanding is yes, we are going to probably use something like the table that I showed in my presentation moving forward that so that we can kind of see a comparison of where these all sit. Now, I'm not a long-term plan. I'm not a long range planner, so I'm not involved in how this is going to move forward with text amendments through the planning commission and the data center. That's going to be on Lauren Knox, which is why I consulted her on this. Um, and we will see what happens. But I think generally this joint session that's happening on October 1st at 10 a.m. um is is going to be the first stepping stone in in standardizing this. Love it. Teamwork. Okay. So, my my next one is going to be on sound steady. Just a quick one because uh I think the the sound steady indicates that uh the noise levels are consistent with the ambient conditions. Uh but I believe the report also mentions that there's a non-conforming residential use one or two or something, right? Uh how confident are you SL staff uh that this compatibility finding holds if their operations scale up or equipment is modernized? I I am compatible. I I am I am confident. I am confident that this will remain compatible because again the non-conforming use here is that residence. It's not the data center. Okay. Okay. And and then so you feel good about it. So if you feel good, I feel good. Uh especially given everything else that you know has been presented. And then lastly, the report cites alignment with the master plan policies on economic development and innovation. How specifically was this alignment determined? I'd have to go back and look at the master plan, which I'm happy to do if you give me a couple minutes. Uh yeah, you know, if if others have questions and whatever for the applicant or something else, uh cool. And if you can do it in parallel uh otherwise you know I'm going to defer to you on this one but maybe that's something that for future applications we can elevate those alignments more um uh verbosely you know just just so we can be clear about how those determinations are made would be a recommendation for the future. Comm Commissioner Brerero this is Mikeley for the record. So is your question how does this align with econ can you repeat that question for me perhaps I can clarify. Yeah. Yeah absolutely Mike. Uh and it was I only bring it up because I believe the the the report staff report cited it. So the the report cited alignment with the master plan policies on economic development and innovation but it it didn't really uh specify how that was determined that alignment. So I was curious uh uh how that determination was made very similar to maybe the you know the uh methodology used for the usage like if like how are we analyzing and quantifying that or making that determination. Gotcha. So the master plan does have policies related to um preserving existing businesses, supporting existing businesses um you know that sort of thing. Also, you know, just from a a pure fiscal perspective in terms of franchise fees and that sort of thing that I think that's what we would look at in terms of supporting economic development. Okay, great. Thanks, Mike. You bet. Uh, do we have any other questions from the commission? And, uh, Commissioner Bisera, you indicated you might have another one. Oh gosh. You know, I think I um I I I ping pong really quickly. I think I hit them all. Very good. If we have no other questions from the commission, we will move into deliberations. I will mention to fellow commissioners if we are going to have a discussion about adding or removing a condition that we uh afford the applicant the opportunity to weigh in on that modified condition before we make a motion. Okay. Deliberations. Commissioner Velto, please proceed. Uh I can make the findings for the project as proposed with the conditions in the staff report. The staff report doesn't contain the condition of rem waving the code requirement as it relates to load dock screening. I'm a little concerned about that waiver um only because I think it's in code for a reason and we should be cautious about waving things in code without having a clear test. My concern really goes to conditional use permit finding number two, uh, which says that the project design must be compatible with the surrounding development. I think that is in code to ensure that the development that's surrounding it, if it's residential, is protected. Uh, all of that said, I am open to being persuaded on this. Uh, and this isn't necessarily a hill I have to die on. I am comfortable with Commissioner Delvr's suggestion of there being some sort of uh time limit when trucks could go through could come in and out with an ex exigent circumstances exception and would say that that should be probably normal business hours if that were something we were going to go to and it seemed like the applicant was agreeable to that potential condition. Yeah, I I'll weigh on and on this as well, Commissioner Jockman. So the um the the thought about adding in hours uh of restriction for truck usage is uh something that is uh palatable to me and I think hearing that there have been no complaints but Miss Picotti explained the mechanism by which a complaint could be filed uh you know if this were to change hands and then you've got a ton of trucks at night they could submit a complaint and they in that case would not be in violation which it sounds like is not how the applicant uses it today. Therefore, it should not be a problem. So, uh, you know, I'm amendable to that and I I like that idea. Commissioner Delvr, so it sounds like 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. is sort of the time frame that most other businesses um would do that. And so, this is to the applicant. would you be amendable to um having a condition put in there that obviously under extenduating circumstances but um that that you would not have trucks going in and out of the loading zone during those hours? Yes, I I would let me address that. Um I think one thing we do want to point out that this this area is mostly industrial. Um, the only residential lot is just directly across the street within the the surrounding area. Um, and uh, but I I don't think we would have an issue. The one other thing I would want to point out, this is a 247 building. It operates 247. However, it's not manned 247. Um most of the personnel work um regular hours like we all do um only in the case of an emergency um a system failure that they would have people um on site. Now if any truck any people that would be on site when I when we look at system failure it would be more of the telecommunications something would go down and uh an IT person would be inside working on it. So naturally, we didn't have a truck. They probably have their personal car. Um, so that would be something uh I just want to make sure that we also understand how this building operates, but I don't think uh they would have any issues with that um that additional requirement. Mr. Tora Grosa and staff if you could please correct me if this is incorrect but my you earlier on in your comments you indicated that you uh would have to check that with Lumen or some senior person within your company. So, it could be an an opportunity for how we could proceed. And again, staff, correct me here if I'm incorrect, but we could render a uh an approval with that additional condition. And if you had an internal discussion, identified that that was a problem, you could then appeal that to the city council and uh in your appeal, you could cite that request and take it up with the city council. Okay. Um I would staff like to weigh in Hold on one minute. Would staff like to weigh in on any of my comments regarding their accuracy? I I would agree with with your comment that any condition that you place on on this, even if you added no conditions, this your action tonight is appealable to the city council. Mr. Tarrosa, would you like to uh comment on that? Um, I think we're in agreement with that. I I don't think if we have any issues, you you could request that and I don't think there would be any objections. Miss Picati, would you like to add something for the record? Yes. Thank you. Leo Picati for the record. Um, I just want to point out, and I didn't show this in my slide, although it's, now that we're talking about hours of operation, I think it's important to note that these industrial zoning districts that are surrounding this are allowed 24-hour use. So, directly to the north of that single family residence is a warehouse and distribution center that operates 24 hours already with trucks coming and going closer to that residence than what this is. So, I I think that's important to note. Uh, Commissioner Delvier, I think the issue though is that we're waving some of the criteria and requirements for barriers that I I I would I would disagree that this should be treated like a variance or a deviation where we have these additional findings. I mean it requires those three things this or this or this or the planning commission can modify it. So it's not necessarily waving it. You're just saying that in this particular case it's not it's not required. So I think we're we're looking at this more of a of a waiver than it is there are several places in code that say you're required to do this but it can be modified by the administrator. And all day, every day, we look at things on a case-byase basis and say, "Does this make sense in this particular spot?" And um we, you know, we don't we don't we're not required to make any of those extra findings to modify those. It's set up in code that way so that we can look at these individuals. And if you want to place time constraints on the loading dock, I understand. But from staff's perspective, there's a much more impactful loading and unloading business directly 20 ft from this residence. So I I mean I again I just I I think that's important to note because the general character of this area is industrial. Uh so Miss Picotti, in in relation to that, do those because the because of the condition that we're granting arguably a deviation for, do those other truck docks face a a residence? I'd have to look and see. Okay. But I mean, they're it's right there. Sure. I understand that they have those hours of operations as you're stating. However, they might not be going directly to a residence. I fully recognize this is a industriallyzoned residence. We had a similar uh debate when it was a much larger scale project in the center of town, but um that is within the scope of the uh deviation that we're granting. So, yes, thank you. Uh Commissioner Bisera, do you have a question? Uh not not necessarily a question. We're on deliberation, right? We are. Yes. Okay, great. I just wanted to highlight two things. So, I support and appreciate the recommended changes initiated by Commissioner Wr. And also, you know, as we're applying a definition that was only recently added to to code in the last year or so, and it's still evolving as reflected in the upcoming October 1st joint meeting. um you know and and in this particular case as the applicants described that their facility is also not a quote unquote true data center uh I just think it's important that as we move forward it's going to be uh particularly critical to work with staff lean crew council applicants the general public to ensure that these different types of data center uses are clearly defined and distinguished just so we can consistently evaluate these projects moving forward but uh you know on this uh I can get behind this project Um, and appreciate the good conversation and back and forth and thank everyone. Uh, Commissioner Bisera was right. We are in deliberations. So, are there any other deliberations from the commission? Yeah, Commissioner Williams, for the record. Um, I I find this to be bishop a little more procedural than I think it, you know, it's turned into being a business that's been operated for 26 years. Um, but I understand the sensitivity. I think um I think uh Leah gave me the kind of the best clarification. The non-conforming part of this is the house and I actually don't even know why a non-conforming entity is would even draw the requirements of a conforming business. And I guess maybe I should have asked that, but I I think we're setting stipulations um on a on an existing business on something that's non-conforming. So for me, like if if it was easy to add a wall, it doesn't look like that because the way that the driveway and the loading dock I mean you'd have to move driveway entrances and and then logistically with to get a 18-wheeler in there seems complicated. I thought even for a second like maybe adding some more landscaping, but it looks like that loading dock is is far far to the right, which you couldn't really do. I understand the sensitivity behind it, but um I just I for me I'm sticking with the non-conforming part is the residential not not this business. So I I can make all the findings. I I do appreciate the dialogue and learned a little in the process. So um may I make my discussion at this point? Commissioner Roier, please proceed. Yeah, I really think that this is very different than the data centers we've seen previous in terms of scale and scope and it's an existing use. Um, so I can get behind an approval of the cup, especially under the um information that if there's ever a change for expansion beyond 10.001% that it would come back for re-review. Um, I will say that I don't support um the waiver, but you know, I'd probably get it. It seems like the hours of operation condition are kind of a middle ground. I don't really think we should be giving waiverss to data centers. I I would ask that in our review of the code that that be one of those standards that maybe gets uh deleted or amended in some way, but that wouldn't apply to this project. Um, I want to just say I think the thing that you know, yes, the home is nonconforming, but it was there first. Like this has been a single family home before the area got rezoned industrial and so it's grandfathered in and we need to respect that and that those provisions are in place. It's not a distance from residentially zoned property. the the code is specifying the distance from a residential use. And that's a very important distinction that that person was in that home or maybe it's a rental, but that home has been in use and occupied for a long time. And we need to respect that and not wave things that are meant to protect those even though zoning has changed. That's a Crayola exercise on a map. That's different than the people who actually live there. So, I have a bit of a problem with that. But uh otherwise, you know, 26 years of operations, no complaints. Seems like a a good industrial data center that or data center light that we could learn from. Uh Commissioner Jockman. So, I'll add one thing quickly to that. Yeah, it is the second finding within the conditional use permit. as it reads, the proposed land use and project design is compatible with surrounding development. When I read that, it it is it does open the door a little bit to going beyond just how it's zoned. Um I'm I'm I'm really torn on this one. I think some very good points have been made in both um portions of uh how and whether or not we should apply the hours of operation. I have a feeling that it's probably not going to make much of a material difference. So, um, yeah. Any other thoughts from the commission? Yeah, Commissioner Williams, for the record. When I think about, um, when I think about the hours of operation, it I I think Leah's comment on this is true. It all comes down to enforcement. We can set all the guidelines we want and hours of operations, but how that plays out is a a thing to Reno Direct and then a followup and then maybe a letter and then two weeks down the road a slap on the hand or or whatever the case might be. So I I just don't know. I don't know considering that the surrounding areas are allowed to operate 247 at a much larger scale if it makes a lot of sense in my mind to associate that to a much much smaller operation um with uh many many years of proven record um as far as lack of complaints to the city. So that's all I got. Commissioner Basser, for the record, just quickly wanted to say I concur with Commissioner Roar's sentiments too, just about respecting the residents place in the community because we have seen this in other uh at other times at least during my time and and often times we do uh you know want we we we do make it a point to honor or grandfather uh businesses uh when things change and it's just as important to do the same with uh residents. Um, so just wanted to say that and I'm happy to make a motion too. Uh, oh, actually, you know what? I'm I'm going to not make the motion because there was some deliberation with the the waiver and all those things. And I think if we're going to apply anything with uh what Commissioner Delvi might have recommended or made, it might be easier for someone else to make that motion. It would appear as though we may not have complete agreement across the commission about that condition that we may or may not add. So, let's please proceed, but some deliberations to see if we can get to a consensus. Commissioner Roer, I don't support the waiver. I mean, I don't support the waiver and I don't support the hours of operation if we're it's a 24-hour use and there should stay. Commissioner Bisera, I'll I'll back that one as well with Commissioner Rumar. Yeah, Commissioner Williams, I'm I'm confused by what Commissioner Roire was suggesting. If she could clarify. Yes. Uh, Commissioner Roire, for the record, I don't um I don't support the waiver of the landscaping or wall screening requirement. I do completely independently of that see that this is a 24-hour operation in an industrially zoned property and therefore the hours of operation limitations seem ownorous by comparison for that zoning district and the the car wash which is a 24-hour use and other things right next door that are operating with loading and unloading 24 hours a day. Can I can I ask a question because I I think this might help my understanding of the the code. Uh Leah, question for you please. Uh so the portion of code that says you know one two three things you can do for screening and then four planning commission can change it. Are one two three ever applicable by right? Like are there situations where someone doesn't have to come before the board or the commission and they can just build and then they have to comply with one, two, and three? Yes. Gotcha. Okay. They're use standards. So um so in other words when we usually use standards are used beyond when you are in the de they're development standards that are in the youth standards section. So they would be reviewed at the time of building permit and that's why it's worded that the build the loading docks be designed in this manner but we're you know and and as somebody else said tonight it might have been commissioner but Sarah we're trying to figure this out right with these data centers and we're working through this and we're trying to figure out what works and what doesn't and we wrote this code and now we're applying it to data centers and we are saying does this work for every data center. So we added that fourth option. So you can do this or this or this or the planning commission can modify it. And for the fourth option, is it just the planning commission can modify it or is it the planning commission and the administrator can modify it? The planning commission can modify it because it requires a conditional use permit. So of the other ones that I referred to earlier where the administrator can can modify it, that's like 30-day reviews. Okay. So, hey, thank you so much. That really helps me understand. Uh, I think I have come around on this. Um, I view the code scheme as being here are the set requirements if you want to do something by right that doesn't require discretionary review. In the event you need to do something that requires discretionary review through a conditional use permit, it's expected that the planning commission will put sufficient conditions to address whatever concern that portion of code is contemplating. and therefore you don't default to one of those three. So it's not so much a waiver rather it's a the planning commission has uh discretion and conditioning the project so that the requirements of one two and three don't necessarily apply. That's how I would view it not a waiver. Um so I I still think that Mike do you have any comments on that? So, Commissioner Velto, to your point, if if you look in Leah's slide that was up before, item number four says these requirements may be modified through the conditional use permit review. So, you're not waving them. If you put a condition, for example, that limited the hours of the truck door, you would be modifying the standards to address any concerns that you may have. Okay. I I'm not sure if that really answers your question but I'm stuck between given that it's the word modify. I'm stuck between the idea that I don't like going away from code as commissioner romire has stated, the idea that uh it makes sense to potentially condition it in a way uh that limits it as commissioner delvar's stated and also commissioner William you make a lot of good points. I don't think this has been very helpful in my last few minutes of talking. So, I'll defer to y'all if you want to make some make some make a motion. No. Yeah, I'll I'll piggy back on that. Commissioner Williams, for the record, um I I I'm behind all these standards and as far as anything new that's coming up. It's hard to apply this to a building that's been in existence for close to 30 years. And I think that's what we're seeing. I mean, logistically, implying these types of standards or not waving them is kind of unrealistic in my opinion. So, I I I understand the standards and I and I appreciate them and I would have no problem in a in a new build scenario u sticking to those and and making that an obligation personally, but this is I just get stuck on the existing part of this um that this and applying it to what we're looking at today. So, uh Commissioner Delvr and and I I appreciate those those comments and and all the information. I I I get it and I'm still trying to absorb and trying to figure out like what what does make sense. But my bigger concern, Commissioner Williams, is that this uh cup goes with the land. So the next owner could potentially do something different, but to Leah's point, it's 247 operation anyway. So it wouldn't it it shouldn't impact that. So motion unless somebody we are in deliberation. So yeah please proceed. Uh in the matter of case number LDC26-0000009 uh based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the additional condition of condition number six that there will be a modification of the requirement under RMC18.03.306B1 306B1 requiring load dock screening and I can with that I can make all the findings. Commissioner Williams I second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further is there any further discussion that would like to take place given that we have uh modified conditions on this motion? Yes, I think that I think we have to clarify that modification. Yes, that is Yeah, if you could please clarify your Oh, the modification to make the the load dock screening requirements not apply. Is that adequate? Thank you. You mean to resc uh Commissioner Aurora Meyer, did you have any additional thoughts? Um, I can live with that. I I don't love it, but I can certainly vote for it. Any other discussion from the commission with the modified condition before us? Commissioner Ber for the record. Same same as Commissioner Vormire. Uh you know, I I hope that we can just get more clarity around these as we move forward. As Leah mentioned and I mentioned before, we're all kind of uh uh wrapping our heads around around this. And I I I like to believe that we all have uh the best interest of the community and the business and so forth, you know, at the forefront. So, we're trying to make it uh easy for folks to do business while uh being community responsible. And so, uh I can get behind this, but I I just don't want it to be a a common scenario moving forward. Okay, we have a motion and a second. I'm not seeing any other uh discussion requested from the commission. Uh for this we will do a single uh request. So all those in favor of this motion before the commission say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item 7.2. We will now move on to number eight, business items. Uh I believe this is for staff. Mr. Really? Uh no general business items that weren't covered previously under announcements. Thank you. Item number nine, Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. Uh I believe there's nothing to report on this. We already heard from staff about the uh uh motion that was made by city council in regards to one of those items before the TMRPC. Uh but there has been no meeting since our last city planning commission meeting. Therefore, there are no items to provide on that. We'll move on to item number 10, commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. Commissioner Delvr, just about the October 1st meeting. I'm I'm just not sure like what the format is, what the agenda is. Um it would just be super helpful like are we should we come prepared like with presentations? I'm just not sure what when any of that is. So if we can get clarification on that um at some point that would be super helpful. Would staff like to comment on that in any way? I think that that format is actually being developed as we speak. I do know that Jeremy Smith from Regional Planning will be giving a presentation is my understanding. Um and then once the agenda is out, I'll be make sure that that gets circulated to the commission and as Commissioner Ber said posted on the the city's website. Will we all be seated here? I don't not sure how that what the seating arrangement will be, but Tyler and Cali and their team, I'm sure, will have a plan. You guys are going to sit on your council members laps the whole time. Um, I don't know if this is under this topic, but question maybe for are we I attended the boards and commissions. I think we all attended the boards and commissions training on Monday. There was mention of having to elect a secretary. Uh, Commissioner Roier, that doesn't apply for the planning commission. Um, for the most part, the planning commission was not affected by the boards and commissions resolution um because they were established under NRS. So, that won't apply for this commission. Thank you. Any other items from the commission under item 10? Hearing none, we will move to item number 11, public comment. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers? I don't have any requests to speak in chambers, but we do have a participant on Zoom with their hand raised. Um, so Beth Dory, when you're ready, you can unmute your mic, state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Yes. Hello. I just uh I just emailed you all and I'm very concerned that you all approved a major deviation several weeks ago without viewing or requiring a recent recorded boundary survey. An engineer stamped the setback letter. Um I think by doing so he might have been out of his scope. An engineer is not a surveyor. I spoke to this engineer and he confirmed that he did not obtain a survey. How can you all approve a major deviation without knowing where the true boundary is? A tape measure against a 70-year-old fence is good enough for the Reno Planning Commission. If I'm wrong, which would be a first, and there is a recent recorded boundary survey, I will donate $100 to a charity of your choice as long as it's not for Devon Reese's mayorial campaign. Thank you, Beth Dory. Madame Clerk, do we have any other requests to speak? I do not. Okay. Uh, that con that concludes item number 11. Item number 12, adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. We have a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Meeting adjourned. She wants to