So, we are at capacity for planning commission meeting dated Thursday, November 20th, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. The time is 6:03. Uh, please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance. Miss Picotti and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> We are at capacity for this meeting. So I kindly ask if some of you provide a public comment. We do have TVs outside. Uh after you provide public comment, please consider uh watching out there so that we can get more people in for public comment. Madame clerk, >> we'll turn the mics up. Roll call. >> We will turn the mics up. Please maintain decorum in chambers. >> Madam clerk, roll call. >> David Jockman >> here. >> Jacob Williams, >> here. Manny Bera >> here. >> Christina Delviar >> here. >> Tina Gonfontini >> here. >> Carrie Roier >> here. Alex Velto >> here. >> We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. >> Item A3, public comment. Madame clerk, please proceed. >> 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 3 minutes. If you're 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 did receive correspondence for this item that were forwarded to the planning commission and entered into the record. Additionally, I have one public comment card from John Marshall. >> Please state your name for the record. You will have three minutes. >> Thank you. My name is John Marshall and I wanted to make certain, Mr. Chair, that by speaking now I won't be prevented from speaking again for three minutes on the LDC 25006. >> That is correct. So there will be and just for everyone to be could you please stop the clock while I make this communication. So there is an opportunity to speak under A3 where we are right now. We only have one item on the agenda tonight that is C1. Uh you will be afforded an opportunity to speak under that item. So you have an opportunity to speak now or then. I kindly ask that you will um if you do provide a public comment that you um consider taking a step to the uh lobby so that you can allow more people to provide public comment. We will get to everybody so don't worry about that. Okay, please proceed. >> John, I've restarted your time. >> Thank you very much. Like I said, I'm John Marshall. I'm here with Luke Busby. Uh and we're representing Save Lake uh Lakeidge Open Space NCC. Um I'd like to first in this first three minutes and I'm doing this because we only have three a total of six minutes to present to you whereas staff and the applicant have significantly more time. What I wanted to do here first was just set some context and then subsequently go into the grounds for uh my part will be for the finding uh you can't make the findings on the record before you. So with that I really want to talk about that the remapping request that is before you like all remapping requests either um uh master plan amendments or zoning map amendments um they contain really two questions and one is should we get rid of what we have and the other one is what should we put in its place you can't focus on one you have to look at both and I think often times At least uh from my perspective in the staff report that first question is do we want >> Did I get extra time? >> You did get extra time. I forgot to set the timer. >> Go ahead. >> Um okay. So there there's two basic questions. One is about should we maintain what we have and if it's going to change what should it change to? And you can't answer only the second question. You have to look at the policies etc in favor of the existing zoning and master plan designation scheme itself. So I think that's an important thing for the commission to keep in mind. Um I'd also like to say just on a personal note, it's great to be back in front of the planning commission after being on in your seats. I understand what a difficult job it is. So thank you for your patience. Um, you're not acting on this item on a blank slate. Um, in 2021, as you know, the planning commission looked at closely at the question of whether or not the open space designation should uh be maintained for a portion about half of the acreage that we're talking about tonight, the actual uh driving range parcel. Um and unanimously the um planning commission at that time found that uh the open space the PGOS designation should remain. And of course I'm going to have to point out that Mr. Velto was with me on the planning commission at that time and voted in favor uh of denying the request. So in a greater sense that really the question is what has changed in the interim that should uh require or allow um a different outcome. Uh and I think that is the end of my time and it the so I'll be back and talking about traffic removal proposed um incompatibility and that the SPD is not consistent with zoning direction in NRS. >> Thank you very much, >> Madam Clerk. Next public comment. >> Uh that's all I have for general public comment. You all commented under the item, so you'll provide public comment during the actual agenda item. Do we have any requests in chambers to speak at this time or would we like to wait to the agenda item hearing? None. Can we confirm there are any outside before we proceed? >> Yes, I was just notified that there's about 30 people outside with public comment cards. Um, so we can collect those and see if they'd like to speak during general. Um, >> yeah, let's check the public comment cards. >> One second. >> I'll speak now. >> I'll speak now. >> So, I did I did just request. Yeah. So, [clears throat] uh, please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. And when you are finished, please complete a form. Are they blue tonight Cali? >> I did complete the form. >> Perfect. Okay, >> great. Stephen Flanigan, live on Lakeidge. Thank you all for coming and supporting uh this drive. Um I was a developer. I've been on all sides of uh what's going on tonight. And really the bottom line for us is the traffic already. That's rated F between uh Lakeside and Plumis. Uh we know what's going to happen. The other thing is I I sense uh for me personally I I sense a a drive by the the Duncan Golf Management to limit the golf. So they went from a golf range to no golf range. They went from twilight golf to no nine holes after a certain time. They went to giving away free water, which by the way, I'm truly jealous because you guys get to have water and we don't. Yeah. >> And and so again, having been a developer, I understand the money. I understand what's going on. And it seems to me as a golfer where I used to get ice, I used to get a complimentary bottle of water. I don't do that. So they have chipped away Duncan Golf Management has chipped away at the value of being a member of Lacage which originally many of us were part of the HOA which got a 30% discount when Lacage was developed. That has gone by the uh wayside now at this point. But again that's really all I have to say. I hope you recognize the importance of open space and opening and letting the camel's nose get under the tent. How dangerous this is for all of our open space. Thank you. >> Have we confirmed that there are no requests to speak under this item outside of chambers? >> I don't think so. No. >> We had one other request over here. Please uh step forward and state your name for the record. >> Chair do chair >> also if you have submitted a uh sure commissionerto. >> I just want to do you mind if I clarify something for >> please. >> So um some of you all this may be your first time coming to a planning commission meeting. It is very helpful for us to hear public comment after the presentation. So the way it's structured is the applicant and the city will present and then we'll do our disclosures and then you're able to basically comment on what we've said and what they've said. You're obviously able to make public comment now. It's just very helpful for us to hear it in that order. But with that you can make public comment whenever. Just wanted to throw that out there in case there was some confusion as the to the process. >> Thank you for kind of a time restraint. >> Totally. Please. >> Is there a way of my message? >> Yes. So, right next to the at the podium, you have an opportunity to provide a visual. >> Great. >> Uh, I just a simple message. Uh, please state your name for the record. >> Terry Rupert for the res for the record and I am a homeowner in W 2. Um, I just I was involved in a recent appeal and I got very familiar with traffic studies and this is really is that going to show correctly? Is is my message. Um when there are cities across this nation that planning commissions and city councils require cumulative impact analysis to be done with traffic studies. You can't just look at a project in isolation. There are other projects around this area that have been improved uh approved. And I did not see in reading the summary of this traffic study for the um golf course project where that was mentioned. I could be wrong. That was um my interpretation. Uh I don't see how you can approve projects without requiring traffic studies include this cumulative impact analysis. Um, I really wish that that's something the planning commission and the city council would visit. I think this is a requirement that is reasonable and I think the citizens of Reno um deserve that and that's all I'm going to say because you're going to hear a lot about all the other issues surrounding the project. Thank you. >> Chair, we have confirmed there's no one outside who would like to speak under general public comment. >> Very good. We have item A4, approval of the agenda for possible action. That is today's agenda. I get a motion to >> Commissioner Ber second. >> A motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. Item A5, approval of the minutes from our November 5th, 2025 meeting. >> Commissioner Alto move to approve. >> Commissioner Williams. Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I >> I >> I >> we will move staff announcements to be after uh the public hearing tonight. So, we'll get right into the agenda item that you all here for. Uh item C1, staff report for possible action and a recommendation to city council. So, I want to take a minute to explain that the U motion that will be made today uh tonight will be a recommendation. It is not a final decision. This could be denied. This could be approved. Regardless of how that goes, this will advance to city council. The city council could then reverse our decision with a simple majority or a failed majority vote. Uh staff, would you like to add into that at all? >> No, I think you summed it up nicely. >> Very good. So, the format for this, as Commissioner Velto pointed out, we will begin with a staff uh a staff presentation from Miss Picatti. We will then have an applicant presentation. We will follow with disclosures and then we will go to public comment. So you will have an opportunity to provide comment based on everything that you have heard. Miss Picati please proceed. >> Thank you and good evening chair members of the commission. For the record my name is Leah Picotti and I am an associate planner with the city of Reno development services. This evening I am presenting the application for Lakeidge Resort. I'm sure everybody here probably knows where this is located, but it is a 12 acre 12.5 acre site which is part of a larger 85 acre site south of McCarron and just west of the Plumis intersection. Tonight we're looking at two different requests. One is for a master plan amendment from parks, greenways, and open space to suburban mixed use. And the second is for a zoning map amendment from parks, greenways, and open space to a specific plan district. I'm kind of going to talk about each one of those by themselves. So, we're going to start with that master plan amendment. So, request number one is the master plan amendment from parks, greenways, and open space to suburban mixed use. So on the screen outlined in blue is the 2 12.5 acre parcel. Um on the left hand side of the screen is the current zoning design the current master plan designation and on the right hand side of the screen is the proposed designation. As you can see that um 12.5 acre parcel is adjacent to existing suburban mixed use. Now, this is a much larger picture of that southern portion of McCarron there. But what I want to point out is that everything you see in pink is suburban mixed use. This extends all the way from that circle that's over on the right hand side of the screen, that's Meadowwood [clears throat] Mall. All the way down the south side of McCarron to right at this property line. Everything else, everything on the south side of McCarron from Meadowwood Mall to this site is suburban mixed juice. Secondly, the suburban mixed juice does not conform to tier 2. Now, this might be a little bit confusing, but I just want to throw it out there because the way that this works is that the planning commission is making a recommendation to city council. City council will then hear this item. They'll have two different readings. First, they'll look at the ordinance introduction where we'll explain what's going on. If they choose, they can move it forward to an adoption. So, two city council hearings. Then, it would move forward to the regional planning commission who would hear this and look at both the tier amendment and the master plan zoning amendment or master plan amendment. And then because this requires a tier change, it would then have to move on to the regional governing board. So we still have several public hearings that this would have to go through. This is just the first of many. But I want to point out these tier changes here because what you see on your board here is not city of Reno zoning. This is regional plan. And what you're looking at there are tiers. And this basically dictates the density of what's allowed in specific places. Because these guys are proposing a hotel, it would require an amendment because the SMU master plan designation would allow for a higher density than what that does. So anyways, long story short, going to require a tier amendment as well. So request number two is for a zoning map amendment. This is from the parks, greenways, and open space to a specific plan district. The specific plan districts always fall with a base zoning district. So in other words, anything that is not specified within that specific plan district defaults to Reno Municipal Code and to in this case the mixeduse suburban zoning district. But this is a little bit deceiving because in the grand scale of things mixeduse suburban allows for a lot of different uses. This is just allowing for a very very very small portion of the uses that would be allowed if this was just stra straight mixeduse suburban. So while we are using it as a base zoning district here, it's not really indicative of the entire project. I put this up here because I just want to make sure that everybody understands if development does not occur or an application to extend the development does not happen within a 10-year time frame, the SPD goes away. And this goes back to parks, greenways, and open space zoning. So, just to be clear, it doesn't default to mixeduse suburban, doesn't default to single family, goes right back to being PGOS. going into a little bit of the background which I'm sure the applicant's going to cover but just high level here. So in the 1970s early 1970s Lakeidge Golf Course was established. In 2006 council initiated a zoning map amendment to change this from single family to open space. And they said in that report that the reason that they did that was that they wanted to provide certainty that the property would be maintained as a golf course or similar use with any future changes subject to public notice and deliberation. So, what that means is that council in 2006 wanted to make sure that if at any point the the golf course was going to be developed as anything other than a golf course that it would be subject to the public hearing process. So, that's why we're here today. In 2021, Reno Municipal Code was updated. We no longer have OS or open space zoning. We now have parks, greenways, and open space. So that OS designation was then transferred to PGOS and then approximately 2023 around the time that the Toll Brothers town homes there were built the driving range closed which is what has brought us here today. Overall site design. The overall site design is on the board here. Uh one thing I will point out is that it shows that uh right turn lane off of McCarron that has since been modified. There will not be a right turn lane off of McCarron. It will be a gated emergency access um for emergency vehicles only. So overall site design is going to include a 100 room non-gaming hotel, 15 hotel villas, restaurant and bar with outdoor dining, spa, pool, garden areas, tennis and pickle ball, putting greens, parking and maintenance facilities. Um the way that a specific plan district works is that we need a site plan that looks like this and then the site needs to be developed according to this site plan. So they can't suddenly change this. They can't decide they want to move the hotel over to the other side or that they're going to put in a hundred villas instead of a 100 room hotel. It doesn't work that way. Needs to be developed in conformance with this plan as presented. uh uses permitted under the specific plan district. So the list of uses that you see on the board there is everything that's allowed within this specific plan district. Everything that's in green is already allowed in parks, greenways, and open space. Everything in blue is existing on the site and non-conforming because uh bars, lounges, taverns, and restaurants aren't actually allowed in PGOS. So there was a bit of a nonconformity created when we designated this as open space and then moved it to the parks, greenways, and open space. So we now have non-conforming uses. So one of the things that the SPD is going to do is bring these into conformance. And then anything that you see in red is not allowed in PGOS. So really all we're really asking for here is a hotel, a spa, and the potential for some sort of private club, lodge, or fraternal organization, which could be construed that it already exists on site if you think about the the golf club itself being a private club. So I just want to point out again, MS zoning allows for a lot of things. This SPD restricts those allowed uses to only what you see on the board. Anything in blue or green is already there or allowed and only those three things in red are what's actually being contemplated. I just want to point this out because as we worked through this handbook, we looked at every single standard that was allowed now under PGOS, what could be allowed under mixeduse suburban, and then we made it more restrictive. So, one of the things I've heard a lot about is lighting, hours of operation, pickle ball courts, um, setbacks, things like that. So, I just want to point out that that right now, uh, pickle ball courts or some kind of ball courts are an allowed accessory use in PGOS. So, they could be developed right now. And because this part of code says that in all districts except for PGOS these it has to comply with these standards. So right now those pickle that entire 12.5 acres could be developed with pickle ball courts with the lighting not being shielded from adjacent residences. Stadium lighting would be allowed. Um it would not have to be screened from the adjacent residential properties. The lighting would not be subject to the lighting code. it would not be subject to the setbacks and it would not be subject to the restricted hours of operation. So, I just want to point out that within this SPD, every single one of those things has been restricted. Not only what you see on this board, but even more so. And I'll let the applicants talk a little bit more about the restrictions that they've applied and those residential compatibility standards. But I wanted to kind of talk about that high level for a second. So regarding compatibility, I think everybody knows here we have residential zoning on both sides. We have single family and we have town homes. Now the applicants have included enhanced standards for every single one of the things up here. Setbacks, stepbacks, open space buffers, screening, shading, sighting, signage, and lighting. every single one of these things was looked at and then enhanced and made more restrictive specific for this. So again, when we go back to those allowed uses and we're looking at the things that are allowed now or are existing and non-conforming, [snorts] all of those things could be allowed closer to the residential property lines. Less open space buffers, stepbacks may not be required. screening would probably be a solid 6-ft wall and 5t of landscaping, which is what's generally required between these types of uses, but I think we all know that a 6-ft solid wall and 5T of landscaping isn't going to do a lot for screening in this particular area. Um, shading. We have an ordinance in code that says that basically anything that's 35 ft tall or 45 feet tall that casts a shadow on multifamily or single family zoning has to provide a shading study. In this particular case, the applicants lowered that to 35 ft. So anything above 35 ft has to provide a shading study showing that it will not cast a shadow on these residentially zoned properties. So again, enhanced standards, the signage, what would be allowed in parks, greenways, and open space or mixeduse suburban has been greatly restricted through this. And um as well the lighting, uh lighting poles, how uh tall those lights can be, what kind of shielding is required, what kind of um the the color of the lighting, everything has been enhanced through this process. Traffic access and circulation. I know this is a big thing. Um I'm going to touch on it a little bit here, but we've got traffic engineers in the room and I I'll let them get into it and answer most of the questions, but basically we know that RTC is going to widen McCarron to six lanes is expected sometime between this next year and 2034. We know that that widening [laughter] Thanks guys. We know that that widening will enhance the level of service service at the Plumis intersection. And we know that this project will pay into the regional road impact fees that go for doing projects like widening McCarron. All right. Specific plan district recommended findings. So we have some findings here up on the board. These are the recommended findings. Um, basically it has to conform with state law and the SPD handbook and Reno municipal code provide zoning regulations in accordance with the proposed master plan for the land use. So this is in accordance with NRS. It conforms to the master plan. We have adequate public facilities and infrastructure particularly uh policies promoting infill redevelopment and efficient use of existing infrastructure. It definitely meets the intent of the SP of the SPD which is design and configuration to accommodate projects or plans where the design and configuration of the uses so arranged as to constitute a single functionally integrated entity. Basically the way that we see this is that this is all going to be uh supporting commercial activity for this golf course and then addressing a unique situation providing a benefit. The driving range is closed. Uh the project will accommodate resort type amenities while incorporating these restricted design standards such as enhanced buffers, stepbacks, setbacks, and screening to ensure compatibility with these residential uses. We have master plan recommended findings on here. The suburban mixed use um does uh specifically states in the master plan that it supports a diverse mix of commercial and residential uses. size, density and mix of uses vary depending upon access, location and other characteristics of the surrounding area. Um, are the activities and development compatible with surrounding? Uh, the standards are exceeding the Reno Municipal Code residential adjacency requirements. As I pointed out, there are a lot of things allowed now that will be much more restricted through this specific plan district. It will ensure that the golf resort development is compatible with surrounding neighbors while allowing for the site to function as a visitor serving amenity. And for availability of public services, there's not really a change. This is an infill site. With that, the recommended motion is on the board. I am available for questions as is the applicant. Thank you very much. You >> will proceed now with an applicant presentation. Good evening, chair and members of the commission. For the record, I am TJ Duncan, president of Duncan Golf Management. Tonight, I have with me my sister Millie, my wife Lindsay, and my two nephews, Duncan and Jackson. We're here tonight to continue our family's investment in the long-term vitality of Lakeidge Golf Course. We believe adding a small boutique hotel, new dining options, a modern rec modern recreational amenities will help sustain the golf course, and enhance the experience for both members and the community. Our family has invested in the community for more than 45 years, and every course we've taken on has been revitalized, improved, and made more accessible. We bring the same long-term commitment to Lacage. This is our family's vision to preserve, elevate a Reno landmark we all care deeply about. The improvements proposed tonight will ensure Lorage remains vibrant, welcoming destination for generations to come. Lastly, I would like to thank you all for the opportunity to present this project tonight and your consideration this evening. I'm going to turn it over to Andy for the uh presentation. Thank you. >> Thanks, TJ. Uh for the record, Andy Derling with Woodward Rogers. And just to build on uh TJ's opening comments, just going to give you a flavor of of what the family's intention is for this property. This this is not a um outside the box kind of idea, right? Um enhancing a golf community like this, a golf course with a boutique resort hotel is not uh uncommon in our region. Um here's some examples that they're kind of drawing inspiration from where it's the lodge at Edgewood, uh the Nakoma Resort up near Portola or Grace Crossing which is under construction uh uh up in Truckucky. Uh as staff mentioned um some of the basics of this, this is a 12acre portion of an 85 acre um site uh master plan PGOS and zone PGOS. Uh surrounding zoning in the area is mixed. Uh and as staff mentioned, um yes, the area to the west of us is predominantly residential. Um but this is really kind of the beginning of this transition of of the McCarron corridor, uh our region's principal arterial roadway. Uh as it transitions in this area heading east, um you see here, you know, just in this small snippet, um highdensity residential zoning, commercial zoning, and as you head further east of this, um you know, towards Kitsky Lane, obviously very intense commercial uses and things like that. Um, so we feel like this is not out of context for the broader uh area. Uh, we did submit in April of this year, it included a zoning map amendment to from [clears throat] PGOS to SPD on the entire golf course. Um, the intent really was to include the golf course in the SPD at that time in order to preserve it as the primary use. So SPDs um allow you to have a very narrow bandwidth of the uses that are permitted. And so what we're doing with that concept is to say the primary use of this property is golf course and an accessory use ancillary use to that is this resort hotel. Um the public outcry from that just from the concept of reszoning the golf course even though it was a resoning to um to something that was protecting it um was met obviously with uh some significant outcry. And so we did pivot from that um and have just focused on uh this 12 and a half acres now. So we removed the rest of the golf course from the request. It's not being reszoned. It's being maintained as its PGOS um zoning. Uh and we're limiting to this 12 a.5 acres. Uh and that is what is the revised application that's in front of you today. Um our original submitt uh included essentially all the same uses um conceptual plan that's shown on the screen as staff mentioned. Uh a lot of these uses are either allowed in the existing PGOS or are existing on the site. Um really the things that we're we're looking to add is is that hotel and spa type uses. Uh the revised submitt again um just a master plan amendment and zone change for the 12 and a half acres. Uh 8 acres of this area is already uh commercial uses, golf related facilities, clubhouse, starter shack, uh maintenance facility, parking lots, things like that. Uh and the design standards handbook establishes a framework for the future development of this based on the mixed suburban zoning standards. So on its surface um master plan amendment from PGOS to SMU uh existing zoning uh changing from PGOS to SPD. [sighs] So the revised um uh proposal protects the remainder of the golf course as open space zoning uh and preserves golf club a lot of the trees along golf cub drive. We actually shrunk the site u from the the previous site plan to this, added in some additional open space buffers along the south side there that are that are able to preserve a lot of those trees. And obviously, as has been said, we're limiting the uses to, you know, a hotel, spa, um restaurants, bars, pools, things like that that you would see as part of a golf resort type facility. again, right? What we're asking for here, what's existing or currently allowed under the the zoning. Uh, and what we're adding really is just that uh spa and hotel [clears throat] feature. Um, and we are further restricting some of the outdoor events. They currently have outdoor events there now, weddings, things like that. Um, we're further restricting those. They can go till 11:00 and now they would only be allowed to go till 10 p.m. So, as I said, this is based on the MS mix suburban zoning um with modifications. So, I'm going to walk through a few of the modifications. As staff mentions, we were we are restrictive on a number of matters um in this um so limited land uses. We don't have the full suite of land uses and permitted uses that are within the mixed suburban zoning district. It's just this small um list of of the hotel and spa and that type of facility. Um we're limiting the building height to 55 ft or four stories. We've increased uh the amount of landscaping that's required to 25% of the site. Uh and we're increasing the tree mitigation um 2 to1 ratio for any trees that are removed. Uh additionally the signage um signage standards are not based actually on the mixed suburban. We are actually basing them on the neighborhood commercial um which reduces the size, it reduces the number and it um restricts the illumination of the signs to be sensitive to the residential to the west. Uh parking lot lighting again is restricted in height uh and location. uh we cannot light the sports courts, the pickle ball. Those are only daytime hour uses. Uh and so we've restricted the uh hours of operation for that. Uh and as well as limited outdoor noise by virtue of limiting outdoor uh events and live entertainment type things. Um we've also um done away with any type of outdoor event space. What we're talking about is be like kind of live music or something like that at an outdoor um dining patio for the restaurant. Um parking uh 357 parking spaces are required. 180 of those are existing on the site. So really it's 177 new spaces. Uh as we go through this process, you know, we continue to receive feedback and input. Um and so one of the things that we we're hearing most recently uh is is a desire to not have excess parking here. And so what we are offering tonight is to add into the handbook a restriction um to just basically meet what's required here. So, it would have to meet that 357 parking spaces. That'll result in removing 30 spaces along the east side there and increasing that landscape buffer. Um, utilities are existing or near the site. Obviously, there's existing commercial activities, sewer, water, things like that are already um um on on the property or near the property to be extended. Uh and minimal improvements are needed. uh traffic um we are generating an an additional 156 peak um trips that under normal code would just necessitate an entry and access study. We actually did a full traffic impact study just based on the mix of uses that are here. Um our primary access is coming off of Golf Club Drive. Um we do have a proposed secondary access on McCarron. It's actually existing um secondary access that's on McCarron there uh gated for emergency. NDOT did review the traffic impact study and recommended that that access on McCarron remain as just emergency access only. Uh we'll be paying uh regional road impact fees to the tune of about $250,000. And as was mentioned, RTC is currently in the design phase of widening of McCarron uh within this area. Um and with that will increase u the level of service at that or decrease I suppose improve the level of service at that Plumis and McCarron intersection. We anticipate just kind of based on the timing of con design and construction of a hotel feature facility like this um that that construction will be done prior to our COO. However, if it isn't uh what we're offering tonight is an additional condition of approval uh that prior to the certificate of occupancy for the hotel, the the project shall construct a minor traffic signal modification adding a northbound right turn overlap phase on McCarron Boulevard and Plum Street intersection subject to city and end approval. uh if that widening project isn't completed before the CFO is issued. So essentially our contribution to this intersection is only about 3% of the total traffic that's going through this intersection. This is a regional roadway. It's got regional traffic that's going through there. Our incremental increase isn't you know we can't mitigate our our our negligible in incremental increase. It really needs to be a regional solution that RTC currently has in the design phase. Um, one of the thing you know the delay level of service is measured as a as a function of delay in the intersection and that delay in that intersection with our project increases by a second or two by doing this uh right turn uh overlap phase um that portion of the intersection can improve by 2 to six seconds. So while we can't improve the whole thing we are making an incremental and we feel um positive impact on that intersection. Uh one of the other things that we heard and we would like to include in the SPD are sustainability elements. Um these would include that all plants are native and drought tolerant. Um we would incorporate cool roof uh with a light colored roof membrane. Uh we would provide at least 10 EV charging spaces, high uh efficiency HVAC units. Um during construction that we would have separate dumpsters for trash and recycling um that would have to be uh coordinated with the city and waste management. Uh we would provide preferred parking for carpool, EV and hybrid vehicles. Um the glazing on the windows would be tinted to reduce um solar uh ray index which helps with the the cooling of the building itself. And then also the pool facilities would have um a solar or some other type of renewable maybe you know if geothermal were available for example um to the extent feasible. So we would like to include that. Um we have conducted considerable public outreach on this. Um, when we submitted the project to the city, we also launched a website that had an FAQ on it as well as a contact us to receive questions, to be able to answer questions, which the applicants um team has done. Uh, we hosted a neighborhood meeting on July 8th at the golf course, had about 200 people in attendance. Um, even though we had pulled back only to the 12 acres of of what we're looking at now, we actually noticed around the entire golf course. So it was about uh close to 1,200 properties were were noticed and we had 200 attendees show up. Uh we went to the NAB on August 19th. Um the team has had several meetings with uh groups and neighbors that are concerned about this. And I would add, you know, we have reached out to um uh Save Lacorage leadership uh a number of time and either have had no responses or denied offers to meet. So we've unfortunately not had the opportunity to meet with their leadership. So, I want to kind of clear up, you know, what this is and what this isn't because I think there's a lot of misinformation that is out uh in the public. Um, this is a specific plan development that is limited to 12 and a half acres of the existing clubhouse facility and is based on SPDs that have recently been approved, the concepts of the SPDs that have recently been approved in the city. It's not a reszone of the entire golf course and the golf course remains as open space zoning. Uh, it is limited request to add complimentary uses to an existing golf course, including a non-gaming hotel. It does not allow for residential or other commercial developments other than those that are included in that narrow bandwidth of uses that are in the SPD. Um, this is an opportunity for Duncan Golf Management to provide additional amenities to golfers in the surrounding neighborhood. It is not a ploy um to set up for future sale of the entire golf course. Um, we feel like this is respectful of the existing neighborhood character through the responsible and responsive development standards that we've included in the SPD to address neighbor concerns and it's not a plan to expound expand housing options uh around the rest of the golf course. We feel like this is uh this is appropriate and a complimentary use on McCarron Boulevard, our primary uh region's arterial. uh it is has restrictive design standards to address um the compatibility. Uh and um we are the intent all along was to make this available to the public through the expansion of Duncan Golf's existing golf membership program uh either through social membership uh or day passes. Um, think, you know, similar to, you know, the the um um Ranchera, uh, you know, has a social membership pool, spa, um, uh, restaurant facilities within a residential community, uh, Hidden Valley Country Club, um, you know, uh, restaurant, um, uh, pool, pickle ball, and tennis that you can join and not have to be a golf member. So, we are expanding the membership options to the existing members of Lacidge. uh it's not limited to just hotel guests and and resort club members. So, want to clear that up. So, just to in my last kind of minute here go through um what we've heard and how we've responded. Um so, we heard obviously a tremendous concern that this was a reszoning of the entire golf course. As I've stated multiple times here, we we were not reszoning the entire golf course. This is limited to 12 and a half acres for the result and clubhouse. Um there was concern about obstructed views. We've limited the hotel to four stories, 55 ft, uh, and located it strategically to not obstruct views. Um, landscaping, we've increased our tree mitigation from, uh, to a 2:1 ratio, uh, and we've also in increased our amount of total landscaping to 25%. Signage has been reduced uh, in the number of allowable signs as well as limiting the illumination of those signs. Uh, lighting, we don't have lighting in the recreation areas. Um we have reduced the pole heights in the uh parking areas and near residential to be um cognizant of those adjacent residential uses. Uh noise concerns, we've limited the hours of operation in the recreation areas and for outdoor events. Uh the intensity of the overall hotel use has been a concern. It's been limited to a total of 115. So 100 keys in the in the main building plus the 15 villas. Uh and it's a non-gaming facility. And last [snorts] but not least, uh if I can just get a few more seconds. >> Is this your last slide? Yep. >> Okay. >> Um, we've heard that there is a desire from the community to save Lacage and with this investment from Duncan Golf, it provides that opportunity to preserve the Lacage golf legacy in the city by making a strategic investment to bring more visitors and golfers and and extend the legacy of this golf course. So, uh, with that, I am available for questions as well as our team. Thank you. >> We will now move move to disclosures from the commission and then we will begin public comment. Uh we'll start on this side tonight with Commissioner Bisera. [clears throat] >> Commissioner Bera for the record. Thank you. Um I've met and spoken with the applicants and um his representatives. I met with uh residents and safe safe ridge safe legal representation. I've spoken to prior staff familiar with past projects related to the regional site. I'm familiar with the project site and um I've read and reviewed all the material. Thank you. >> Commissioner Roar Meyer read and reviewed all of the material, spoke to the applicant, asked questions of uh the planning manager, and yeah, I I'm very familiar with the site. I live on Lakeside. So, >> Commissioner Williams, for the record, uh, met with the applicant, met with, um, the group representing Safe Lacage, uh, read and reviewed all material, and that's it. >> Commissioner Jockman sought guidance from city attorney meetings and or phone calls with the following applicant and team, Save Lacage, Mot District 2, RTC Director of Engineering, and then emails with residents adjacent to the property. Commissioner Gonfiantini met with the applicant, met with the applicant representation, met with representation for Save Lacridge, read and reviewed all materials. >> Commissioner Delvr, I have read and received and read all of the uh information that was sent to us and I spoke to the applicant and the applicant's representatives and representatives from Save Lacage as well. Uh, Commissioner Velto uh spoke and met virtually with the applicant's representatives uh multiple times. Spoke and met virtually with the opposition and their representatives multiple times. Spoke with a representative from Lacage Shores. Uh received and reviewed uh all the correspondents and I golf at Lakeidge relatively often. >> We will now move into public comment. I kindly ask that everyone remain quiet while we have individuals speak. Uh some of you may have emotions about this issue. Please refrain refrain from clapping, cheering, booing, anything of that sort. Madame clerk, would you please proceed with public comment for this item? >> Yes, chair. I'm going to read out um three names at a time so we can see who's coming up. Um we'll start with Maryanne Miriam, followed by Terresa Martin, followed by Deborah Z. >> Please state your name for the record. You will have three minutes. Good evening, Reno planning commissioners. My name is Maryanne Mariam. I live on Lakeside Drive, just south of the project. Let me acknowledge that the Park Greenway open space we are talking about is part of a private golf course where people who use it have to pay to be there and it is not open to the public. That said, this open space is indeed used and enjoyed by the general public free of charge every single day. It may not be used and enjoyed as the owner Duncan Golf Course intends, but it is still a fact that it is used and enjoyed by hundreds of people a day, even if that use is purely visual. As a retired landscape architect and neighbor, I'd like to speak about why open spaces are sacred to communities and why once an open space is lost to development, it is lost forever. Loss of open space is irreversible. Once green spaces are developed, fewer than 2% ever return to open space. Open spaces are not pieces of empty land waiting for a better use. They are the better use. They are the lungs and soul of a community, providing open space, clean air, and a refuge from the pace of daily life. They are among the few truly shared spaces we all hold in common. Open space has documented economic value. Research published in landscape and urban planning shows that properties adjacent to open green space experience a 10 to 20% increase in value. A study by the National Association of Realtors found that 57% of home buyers rank access to open space as a top priority, significantly affecting resale value and neighborhood desiraability. Reszoning this space will produce long-term economic harm to surrounding homeowners and reduce the tax base generated by stable, highv value neighborhoods. From an environmental standpoint, this area provides storm water absorption, connectivity to wildlife habitat, heat reduction, and air quality benefits. Development replaces permeable surfaces with imperous structures, increasing runoff with massive amounts of additional paving, adds pollution and infrastructure burden costs that ultimately fall to our local government. Approval sets a precedent. Studies from comparable municipalities show that once one piece of recreational open space is reszoned, subsequent reszoning applications increase sharply. The cumulative effect results in fragmented habitat, significant traffic increases, and permanent degradation of community character. Residents have repeatedly and consistently expressed opposition to this change. The vast majority is that existing open space should be preserved, not reclassified, reduced, or reszoned. For these reasons, economic, environmental, social, and procedural, I urge you to vote no on this resoning request. [clears throat] >> Next up, we have Teresa Martin, followed by Deborah Z, followed by Ed Upton. >> Good evening. My name is Teresa Martin, and I am a Lidge resident. These comments are for the record. The master plan emphasizes smooth transitions between different areas to encourage harmonious development and protect established neighborhoods. However, the Lakeidge Resort project presents substantial inconsistencies with the core principles established in the Reno Reimagine master plan, especially with respect to land use compatibility. This project which includes a highdensity commercial resort featuring 100 room hotel and villas with 247 activity such as deliveries and employee arrivals and departures as well as proposed event functions stands in direct contrast to these principles. Its proposed location is immediately adjacent to existing single and multifamily residential neighborhoods. The placement of a busy commercial resort complex adjacent to tranquil residential neighborhoods does not align with the following master plan design principles which emphasize the importance of appropriate and sensitive varying land use transitions. Master plan CSC14 relationship to adjacent neighborhoods emphasizes the gradual transition in building height and mass along the edge that is shared with adjacent neighborhoods. In instances when neighborhood specific design principles conflict with general neighborhood design principles, the neighborhood locationspecific design principles apply. This project is in complete conflict with surrounding Lidge neighborhood design principles. NG20 community character and design neighborhood identity outlines features that create a strong sense of place for residents. This commercial project neither integrates with the community nor enhances resident sense of place. Only hotel guests and members will actually benefit. NG21 transitions states that abrupt changes in residential densities should be avoided unless they are part of an integrated plan in which adequate buffers and building mass and placement provide a smooth transition. This resort project does not comply with this design principle. The commercial Lake Ridge Resort project brings an incompatible commercial intensity into a residential area primarily valued for its recreational and open space character which is contrary to the Reno master plan. I encourage that you recommend that this commercial project not be approved. And I also believe as an aside that the comment that the McCarron will be done and widened between now and 2034 by that time the traffic will have increased substantially. So I think it's specious. Thank you for your time. >> Deborah Z followed by Ed Upton followed by Katie Pace. [clears throat] For the record my name is Deborah Zalakar. It's not Deborah Z. Uh, I live on Mountain Vista Way on the 13th fairway of Lakeidge Golf Course. I'm strongly opposed to this application. Staff and Duncan Golf have labeled the 12.5 plus acres in question as quote underutilized, framing this development as a quote infill project. Actually, only the 6 acres of the driving range is underutilized. that underutilization is the result of Duncan G's decision to sell the adjacent property owner a deed restriction on the parcel that contains the driving range and then to close the entire driving range to prevent any long drives from hitting the town homes. Most of us who live on the golf course have probably had golf ball related incidents. It is expected when you live on a golf course and there is no expectation on the part of a homeowner that the golf course is at all liable for property damage. There was no need to close the driving range. That was a self-imposed decision. In doing so, they created the state of underutilizing these six acres. The applicable master plan policy expressly applies to quote vacant, blighted, or otherwise underutilized structures and buildings. Open space is not subject to the underutilized master plan policy. The remapping of this 12.5 acres is not compatible with this mature, quiet neighborhood. A 55- ft 100 room commercial hotel operating 24/7 does not belong in the middle of single family homes and twostory town homes. The proposed hotel will drastically increase traffic around the clock, not only from hotel guests and those attending events, but also from staff working 24 hours and from large delivery trucks. The 12.5 acres in question is currently dark at night, surrounded by homes. the elevated lighting for the tripled insiz parking lot, the illuminated signage, the 24-hour pedestrian and vehicle illumination, and the light from interior windows is incompatible with existing homes. The project's recreational amenities will not benefit the community in any way as they will only be available to hotel guests and members. These amenities will not be open to the public and as such do not meet the master plan policies of providing recreational facilities that promote an active lifestyle. In addition, the handbook would allow for outdoor music up to 65 dB until 1000 p.m. and places no restrictions on the number of events or on non-live entertainment like recorded music. There is no accountability for who will monitor the decibel levels. Perhaps that will be addressed every time the police are called by the residents with noise complaints. Interestingly, at the meeting he hosted, Tim Duncan clearly stated that no outdoor live events would occur and that all live events would take place in the hotel. The number of standards in the handbook addressing these items illustrates the basic incompatibility of the neighborhood for this project. This proposal to reszone open space and place intensive commercial development within an existing neighborhood conflicts with numerous findings in the master plan and should not be approved. Thank you. >> Ed Upton followed by Katie Pace followed by Clay Alder. >> Hi, my name is Ed [clears throat and cough] dry throat. My name is Ed Upton and I live by the 13th green on Lakeidge. And uh I think one thing that underlies all of the the physical and and quantifiable objections that people have is the slight of hand that we've had to deal with before. starting with the tennis club where I was a member and uh a developer came in, I believe the name was Reno Land and said, "Hey, we're going to change it and we're going to put 150 senior apartments on the Plumemer side of it. The rest is all going to stay the same except we're going to put a cover over the outdoor pool so you can use that year round." Everybody [clears throat] said, "Yeah, great. That's done. That's a good deal." And all of a sudden, all the buildings are torn down and now we've been living with a big hole at the intersection of uh Lakeside and Plumis and and McCarron. And uh I got to believe that that was their intent all along. Now we're going to have to put up with 473 units as I understand it. We're just going to dump into the same intersection just one street down Lake and McCarron rather than Plum and McCarron. Second thing is [clears throat] they wanted to build condos up on the hill of the driving range. And uh as somebody that played there often, Alex, I'm sure you like to go out and hit some balls to see if you're hitting a slice today or a hook or to see what you have to correct to get your game in place. Now, there's a little net by the first T- box where you can't see what's happening to your ball. You can't see if you have to adjust your swing. And the people apparently on in the condos, uh, the the the the golf course had to be shut down at its driving range because there's only like 240 yards up to the condos. And they were guaranteed a couple of things. one that they would have unobstructed view of the city and it is a beautiful view from up there. But the second thing was that they wouldn't be getting hit by any golf balls. So local people that people that lived there say, "Well, okay, so put up a net." Oh, we can't put up a net. We told them they would have an unobstructed view. And that is what made them determine that the driving range was useless space. Now, as I understand it, the initial proposal had an opportunity to expand to the entire golf course. That's been withdrawn. And I'm sure everybody in this room worries that if you give them the first thing, was it a slide of hand? Will they be coming to the rest of the golf course later on? I thank you for your time. >> Katie Pace, followed by Clay Alder, followed by John Marshall. Good evening, planning commission. My name is Katie Pace. I live off of the eighth hole and I'm here to speak in opposition of case number LDC250061 regarding Lake Ridge. I have lived in this neighborhood since 1976 when my parents built our family home. That home has now welcomed four generations. This is not just a property. It's a community built on decades of family, neighbors, and shared history. The proposal before you would reszone land that has long been designated open space to allow for potential hotel, spa, restaurants, and event venues. While I understand the desire for economic development, this project raises serious concerns. First, it is incompatible with the surrounding neighbors. The scale and intensity of commercial use um proposed will bring traffic, noise, and parking problems that directly impact nearby residents. Second, the traffic impact study completed by GCW in September 2025 shows the intersection currently operates at level of service E, already near failing. With this development, it would degrade further to level of service F, the lowest possible rating. That means the infrastructure infrastructure would be pushed into outright failure, worsening congestion, delaying emergency response times, and eroding neighborhood safety. Third, this project represents a permanent loss of open space. Once reszoned, this land will never return to true recreational use. Open space is vital community resource and its preservation is essential to Reno. Finally, approving this case sets a dangerous precedent. If land designated as p [clears throat] public general open space can be converted to suburban mixed use, other open spaces across Reno may be vulnerable to simil similar development pressures. For these reasons and with the pers perspective of someone whose family has called this neighborhood home for almost 50 years, I respectfully urge the commission to reject this case or require substantial modifications that protect neighborhood com compatibility, safety, and open space. Thank you. [bell] Clay Alder, followed by John Marshall, followed by Cindy Chandler. Can you see that? Oh, there you go. Okay, that was a First of all, this is for the record. Uh my name is Clay Alder. I'm a real estate broker and have been for 50 years. Um this fire occurred on Mountain Vista Way, which is about 2/10en of a mile away from the subject uh access, which is Golf Club Road. And what I want to compare this to is our road there is 25 ft wide and we had to make it one way because cars couldn't really get going both ways. The subject property on G Co Drive is I want to say it is about 29 ft wide but 9 ft of that is for parking. So leaving about 19 feet or so which is 9 and a half feet per lane going up and down there. Fire trucks are 10 feet doesn't work. What you're looking at right now could hurt there. And it's and it's somewhat suspect to me that all the presentations that were given here didn't talk about the access, which is a private road owned by uh that and and that should really be addressed. Another thing that puzzles me is that how does one ask for a zone change today or something that they're not going to do for 10 years? Doesn't it make sense to say, "Why don't you come back in nine years and then we'll talk about that?" So, I don't know if there, you know, if that's something that uh happens every day and maybe if that's the case, I would like to get some commercial zoning on my lot that backs up to u uh the Lakers golf course so I can put a 7-Eleven there. Maybe maybe that would work. But the the other things that are bothering me about this is the road that goes in there uh being very narrow. It also is about 2/10en of a mile about 1,56 ft up to the location of the hotel. [snorts] Plum Street backs up now and if none of you have ever been there, it backs up every day. It only takes eight cars to block the entrance into Golf Club Drive. At that point, only 35 cars could get out of there. It'll take 52 seconds and it stops. That makes no sense. It's a really, really dangerous situation and I think that really needs to be addressed. But I would like some answers on that if on asking for a zone change for 10 years that they're going to do something down the road. Um, what else did I want to say here? When you look at this map here, you can easily see on the map itself the width of the streets there. McCarron Boulevard, Plumis, Lakeside, and then you see the pink there, and that's the size of the little golf club drive. And I really think that's a problem on here. I think enough people have talked about uh the disruption and a lot of the people that live in Lakeidge. Well, my time is over. Thank you, >> John Marshall, followed by Cindy Chandler, followed by Kim Bakus. >> Thank you very much, John Marshall, for the record. Um, first I want to talk about traffic. You've heard you're you've heard about it a lot. You're going to hear about a lot. What I want to focus on is if as we noted in our uh papers, the trips are underounted. They don't count all the allowable uses on the site uh where their trip calcs. Second, um that all 17440 trips are going to be dumped onto uh Plumis. Um, notwithstanding the fact that now they say they're going to try to get an or apply to NDOT to have an a right only out when NDOT has already basically denied that. Um traffic also is the traffic analysis was um dependent on the re the um guests being private and now they're saying they're going to open it up. They're going to have to go back and do that traffic analysis again. Um and lastly, um on traffic, the key finding in order to make your finding that there traffic has been mitigated is that it will there will be in some fashion um the widening of McCarron or some project that does the same thing. And quite honestly, there's nothing in the record that allow you to make that determination on a factual basis. All it is is just statements from either a city staff or from them. Uh so we think that that you can't make your mitigation finding under traffic. Um the key thing I want to talk about with conversion of the open space and the lack of conformance is that there they have not addressed all the policies that go to promoting uh open space. Instead they've tried to denigrate the open space status of this 12.5 acres. Um the key thing there is and they also say that they're going to be using the money to uh benefit the golf course. Of course, now there's unity of ownership, but there's no condition that that is required to happen. So they can sell off the hotel and then there won't be any mitigation supposedly for the open space. Um, next the uh and finally uh the uh incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Remember MS as the underlying zoning is their choice. So when you look at things being reduced from MS, you're starting at an artificial baseline. You're starting at an zoning that they have chosen and now they want to back. they say they're going to back off of and we they should get credit for how well they're doing. It doesn't work that way. Thank you. >> Cindy Chandler, followed by Kim Vakas, followed by Linda Smith. [clears throat] Hey, I'm Cindy Chandler for the record. Um, you heard a presentation from the associate planner justifying the recommendations to approve the Lakeidge resort zoning resoning project and as she explained why the staff believes it is supported by the master plan, title 18 and municipal court codes. You will also hear evidence counter to her findings. I want to address some key statements in the staff report that caused this concern. First, and I quote, "The golf course owner has closed the driving range due to safety and liability concerns, and is now requesting to repurpose a 12.5 acre portion of the former driving range, roughly 8% of the overall course." Fact, Duncan agreed to a restricted covenant prior to attempting to sell the property of the 6.6 um of the driving range back in 2021-22. Under current PGOS criteria, the current driving range cage located next to the first fairway could have been installed on the old driving range with an additional space for chipping and putting greens without jeopardizing the covenant. This is definitely a self-imposed underutilized space caused by Duncan. Second, I and I quote, there are no current plans to sell or develop other portions of the golf course. Fact, the initial application did cover the entire golf course, but this detail was not disclosed until residents publicly demanded accountability from Duncan. Now, the staff report states that there is no current plans. Big concern. Third, and I quote, "The proposed SPD would allow for a result resort-type amenities, including recreational facilities, swimming pool, dining, non-gaming hotel accommodations, and eventing spaces in the area of the former driving range and current clubhouse and parking areas. Fact, the existing PGOS zoning allows for resort style amenities including recreational facilities, tennis and pickle ball. Under this zoning, the applicant already offers dining events and meeting spaces in the current clubhouse as well as hosting weddings and parties. In fact, under the current PGSO PGOS zoning, um the additional proposed services can be provided except for the hotel. Also, if the current clubhouse is torn down, all the surrounding preserved trees identified in the application that would be saved will now be removed for construction, which would be close to 175 trees, mature trees with the entire project. Finally, the summary, the current resort proposal represents an auxiliary um that does not represent the comprehensive and and impartial assessment of the master plan and regard to the potential liabilities affecting the nearby residents as stated as you see in all the identified um >> Thank you. Your time is up. >> So, I do ask that I do have petitions of 330 people and >> please provide that to the clerk. Thank you. >> Your time is up. Thank you. >> Kim Beckis, followed by Linda Smith, followed by Randall Kinsel. [clears throat] >> Hi. Thank you very much for hearing me today, Mr. Chairman, and fellow commissioners. I have to say I really did appreciate the presentation that was made. It looks like a beautiful site that could be uh built on this property. The problem is um and please enter my comments into the record. I'm speaking in opposition to this project on the grounds that it really does not mitigate traffic impacts and it violates RMC 18.08 304E3. The project fails to mitigate and please refer to the legal an analysis sent to you this week by John Marshall Esquire pages 7 and 16. The council itself last night addressed a traffic issue Stacy's Omnicaren along with the notation that there's no funding available for the needed improvements at the overcrowded F-rated Plumis McCarron intersection. The applicant's own traffic study suggests only 1742 more new trips will be impacting this F-rated intersection. And of course, that's on top of Wood Rogers other project that will only impact this intersection with 2,300 more new trips generated. By their own tally, this brings new trips to 4,042 daily at an F-rated intersection. How does that benefit the Reno community, as the applicant wishes you to believe? The applicant's own study states that acceleration taper lane 100 feet in length for the ride out movement is recommended but it is not approved by NDOT. Furthermore, the redline version of the applicant's book states that NDOT has reviewed reviewed and approved the impact study with the condition that the project access remain a fixed gated fire access only. No other intersection or roadway improvements are recommended, nor has any funding been committed by RTC or NDOT to make near future improvements in the quarter. Recommendations for approval must be conditioned upon available NDOT funding for improvement of this intersection. One only needs to look at the failed tennis club that offered gyms, personal trainers, etc., etc., and see that it was declared vacancy. Why would the applicant believe that Reno residents would support his amenities being offered at a price when they did not support LTC less than half a mile away? No, this project benefits the applicant, not the Reno community. As such, this commission runs the risk of approving illegal spot zoning for the purpose of benefiting the applicant and not the community. See John Marshall, page 18. I respectfully urge you to recommend to the city council that you deny this. Thank you for hearing my concerns. I ask each commissioner to elaborate on how you can or cannot make each of the findings. Findings just stating I can make the finding is not professional. Thank you very much for your time. Linda Smith followed by Randall Kinsel followed by Alexu. My name is Linda Smith and I'm asking you to oppose this amendment for four reasons. First, it overturns the important work of the city council and prior staff to preserve open space. In 2006, the Reno City Council reszoned 155 acres to quote, "Preserve the property as an open space amenity, provide buffers, support stone storm water management, and ensure development and intensity was balanced." None of these objectives have changed. [clears throat] A 2022 staff report reinforced the need to keep the area as open space to serve as a major fire break for over 1500 homes. If this commission ignores the work the city has done to maintain PGOS locations, then what good are planning documents? Two, gives Duncan millions of dollars at the expense of the community. Let's face it, when the planning commission upzones the parcel of land, they are handing the property owner millions of dollars by making the property more valuable. Would you, as a person, give somebody millions without getting anything in return? Doing so would be the worst of deals and would downgrade the value of all the surrounding residential parcels in and around Lakeridge. This amounts to an illegal taking and is grounds for legal action by every property owner that touches or benefits from the open space of Lakeidge Golf Course. Third, the stated goal to enhance the golf course can be accomplished without the zoning change. The staff report recommends approval based on the conclusion that the resort proposal represents an ancillary benefit. But this goal can be reached by simply one replacing or or repairing the on-site maintenance building, including its old shake roof that really poses a fire hazard. Upgrade the existing food service to create an attractive dining experience for the community. Upgrade the restrooms and the old dilapidated structures to better attract visitors and install additional recreational facilities compatible with the area such as Botchi Courts. There's plenty of nearby hotels and spas to support out of town golfers. Mr. Duncan doesn't need to build one to improve his cash flow. He already has stated that the course is revenue positive. Finally, the planning commission can improve Reno. Our the leaders of the community, you have the ability to ensure that Reno improves its best city ranking. We are currently 79th out of 100 on the bottom quartile. You have the ability by rejecting this offer to confirm the 2006 and 2022 zoning decisions. Rejecting this amendment, you can act also to try and increase our livability and increase our rank from 79th on the most livable cities list. Thank you. Randall Kinsel followed by Alex Wade followed by Paul Smith. Good evening. My name is Randy Kinsel. I live at 1529 Golf Club Drive. Year and a half ago, my wife and I moved here from Phoenix, Arizona, and brought bought a uh one of the town houses there on the street. This is a picture out of our upstairs window that we've got on the screen right here. Not uncommon for there also to be an Amazon truck parked in front of one of the other driveways there. On the other side of the street, you see there's parking spaces. The parking spaces are there, but you can't see the no parking signs right next to them. No parking signs, but yet marked off P parking spaces. So, people park there. We back out of our driveway every day, multiple times. When we back out of that driveway into this narrow street, which you can see gets narrower as it gets closer to the golf course, if there's cars parked in that parking spots along that road right there, my wife has almost been hit headon twice. I walk my dog across that street because you notice there's no sidewalk on this side of the street. To get to the sidewalk, I have to cross the street in front of my house, walk my dog over there, down the street to the park where and then when I cross the street up there again to go back across to get to the park that I go to. Okay, that's our part of our HOA. That is community area of our community. This is where I live. This is where every day. So I back out of that driveway, I have to drive down to Plumis Road. I drive down to Plumis Road. There's traffic coming from multiple directions. At 5:00 in the evening, there's all the businesses letting out their people from 3:30 to 5 in the morning. They're coming in that way. You can't turn at there's people turning off of McCarron from both directions coming across Plumis coming from the other way. And now you're going to put a 4,000, you know, traffic count place right across the street from behind my house, which is going to be dumping out into the exact same street that I have to turn into. I'm telling you right now, the street I live on is dangerous. And there's not an additional 1,700 trips a day going down there. I live there. I walk across that street. I almost got hit by a beer truck last week when they were doing their parking lot. two dump trucks where the guys were driving along looking at their phones, not paying attention to me or my dog, you know, trying to get across the street and we had to literally run to protect our lives. So, you know, I mean, I don't understand why our private road has to be the egress and regress for this facility. That doesn't make any sense to me. You've got McCarron right there. I don't know, but there's no money to build it there. And according to her, the facilities are adequate for what we're doing, for what the golf course wants to do. This private road that was built for an HOA and an office building that they've been driving on now with access to their building, but they're going to change the price of poker there by raising up another 200 or 1,700 trips a day according to her estimate. And there's 11 other I'm sorry. Go ahead. 11 other people. >> Yeah, there's 12 people who live right there on that street. >> So, there's going to be 12 people backing in and out, pulling in. And I'll tell you, when I turn left into my driveway, I've had people racing around me on the left hand side trying to get off to the golf course. Okay, these guys don't drive. There's no speed limit on the road either, by the way. Thanks for your time. Alex Wait, followed by Paul Smith, followed by Judy Hair. >> Hi, my name is Alex Wait. Ry's my neighbor. I live in the Hilltop community. Um, I'm speaking about the serious qual quality of life harms that this resort will create and the fact that the development plan pushes residents into the role of monitoring and enforcing compliance. So, this project is not is not compatible with our neighborhood and the staff report does not provide the evidence needed for approval. So, first and foremost, the staff report admits the harm, but does not then dismisses it. So, the report acknowledges a resort will bring more than 1,700 new daily vehicle trips, a four-story 55 hotel next to homes, up to 24 ft of excavation cuts and tall retaining walls, 247 commercial operation, early morning and late evening activities from pools, patios, bars, sport courts, and outdoor events, and pushes the nearby intersection to even more just traffic degradation. So, these are major disruptions for all of us that live there. And for me, it's not theoretical. It's my real life. I invested in a nearly million-doll home because of the open space behind it. And our neighborhood is quiet and peaceful. If this resort is built, my daily life is infiltrated by bar noise, pool noise, headlights in my windows, delivery trucks at dawn, pickle ball courts, and outdoor events I didn't choose to participate in every single day. So, this is a permanent loss of peaceful environment this neighborhood was built around. Yet the staff report simply calls these impacts compatible without real justification. So please tell me how is this compatible with my current lifestyle. Secondly, the development plan removes public oversight and puts the burden on the residents. It eliminates conditional use permits, site plan reviews, residential compatibility reviews, and most public hearings. So everything becomes internal administration approval. And because the city has no proactive enforcement program, all monitoring around noise, lighting, hours of operation, tree removal, shading, traffic, it falls into the residents. So, we [clears throat] are the ones that have to measure the noise at night, document light shining into our homes, and report violations, and chase enforcement. How can you expect neighbors to police a commercial resort? Additionally, the mitigation measures are weak, unproven, and incomplete. The staff report lists buffers, noise caps, shielded lighting, but none of these are supported by real studies. Noise. There's no sound study for pools, bars, outdoor dining, or pickle ball. Lighting. There's no lighting study showing these lights will not spill into my yard and window. There's no analysis of sha shadows from a four-story hotel that's pushed into building permits long after the height is approved. In terms of traffic, the main intersections already failing. The resort makes it worse, and the only solution is a road widening that might not happen for years. These are not real mitigations. They're just assumptions. So lastly, the staff report avoids the strongest protections in the master plan, which requires protecting existing neighborhoods, preserving open space, ensuring new developments fit into the surroundings, and supporting responsible, well-managed growth. It really conflicts with all of these and the staff report does not reconcile those conflicts or provide evidence that these standards are met. So, please don't support it. Thank you. Paul Smith followed by Steve Tipple followed by Cynthia Albbright. >> Uh Paul Smith speaking for the record. Uh Duncan Group has an interesting history of finding properties and then squeezing the most profit out of them with minimal investment. Woof Run Golf Course sat on land donated to the University of Nevada. For 10 years, Tom Duncan was coaching the University men's golf team. Then in 2003, the operations of Wolfrun were taken over by the newly formed Duncan Golf Management. While the takeover terms of the of by Duncan are not publicly available, suggesting that the university made no public offer uh suggest that Duncan acquired the golf course operations along with a lease for the underlying land in 2003. By 2012, however, the Duncan group was able to buy the property from the University Athletic Association and the student fund. Interestingly, the property included hundreds of acre feet of water rights that Duncan sold to pay off the balance of the purchase price. Lakeidge Golf Course was purchased by Duncan in 2013 for 5.5 million around the same time those water rights were cashed out. Lakeidge at the time of founding was an aspirational neighborhood outside the city limits and offering large lots and open green space to be used as a golf course. This development was a win for the county and the city. Since the purchase by Duncan Group, there have been no significant improvement investments in the original buildings, even though Duncan reported at a public meeting that Lake Ridge is profitable. Any business that wants to serve as an entertainment venue would have up-to-date dining facilities, public areas, and bathrooms. But Duncan just let things deteriorate. Just look at the maintenance building north of the entrance road to see how little he spent on important facilities. use the bathrooms and visit the dining bar area. Only this month did I note an investment in lot paving. Since 2013, the only aspect of this upzoning request that could not have been done by Duncan is the building of a hotel or villas. Why has Duncan done nothing to better the attractiveness of the Lakeidge venue? Duncan Group purchased the golf course knowing exactly what the city established 2006 zoning rules and business model was for the site. Giving Duncan an entirely new hotel villa business model on 12 and a half acres would be an enormous financial gift to Duncan at an enormous cost to the golfing community in the neighborhood. For success, Duncan just needs to invest in run-down facilities. Do not destroy open green space for the sole benefit of Duncan, a firm that views Lakeidge as a future development, not an existing neighborhood. I urge denial of this request. Duncan has failed to focus on their current opportunities and does not need a bailout from the city of Reno for a new venture. All to be at the expense of golfers, residents, local hotels, and green space for the public. Thank you. Steve Tipple, followed by Cynthia Albbright, followed by Jory Benjamin. >> Hi, I'm Steve Toppel. Um, and I live at in Lake Shores on Sper Drive and I've lived there since uh uh 81. Um, my family was the original developer of all the multif family housing in in uh in Lacage, all the apartments uh the Laker Tennis Club and the apartments that were there. U we have a long history going back with Mr. Jackson when he first built the property and uh it's been basically the same property uh in the same structure that it's been since day one. Nothing's really changed except now [clears throat] uh the the tennis club is gone and the apartments are gone because of some um uh financial reasons that uh were beyond our control. Um I'm I'm going to try to get out here quick. The uh what I would like to if you guys are decide that you want to approve this uh the application uh of Mr. Duncan. Uh we raised Mr. Duncan at the meeting that they had at the 19th hole in July, I think it was, uh the fact that we'd like to get a deed restriction on the balance of the property that would prevent uh the property from being sold off and someone else coming in developing it after this one pro after the golf after the uh driving range project is approved. if you if you decide to approve it. And uh we'd like to have a deed restriction with a right to buy the water rights associated with the u the golf to maintain the golf course as is. And uh if anybody else a third person came in, they'd be bound by the restriction on the uh the golf uh on the golf course. So they would stay that way. And u if you can't do this for uh for me, um I've got my mother here. I'll show you a picture of it. See if I can find it. this picture. She we've been associated with the with the golf course. My sister was a CH champ there, Renee Toppel. Um my mother is an athlete and she's been played golf there constantly. And this is taken 5 days before she passed away. But what she wanted to do was to go out to that golf course and go out and play. And the best thing she could do was to get on the driving range. And so the the last thing I need to do is to protect my mother's spirit and her mim image. um by uh keeping that golf course and that driving range exactly as it was when she passed away. So, Mom, hopefully we got that thing set for you. Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Cynthia Albreight followed by Jory Benjamin, followed by Margaret Crowley. [clears throat] Good evening. For the record, Cynthia Albbright. I'm a resident of Lbridgeidge community and a certified urban planner and one of three in Nevada inducted into the college of fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners. AIC planner planners are bound by a code of ethics that requires us to act with integrity and faithfully serve the public interest. I do not believe the planners on this case have acted accordingly. I'm interested in this case because the planning commission denied the 2021 application to develop half of the land area with a zone change to build 47 town homes. Now, the owner wants an intense commercial use, 30% larger than the village at Ranch Hera, and staff recommends approval. Instead of the residential use the planning commission previously denied, the proposed hotel resort will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Visitor access relies on Plum Street, a minor arterial with insufficient stacking distance in any direction and a level of service F at the intersection to handle increasing volumes from this project as well as the tennis club apartments. Reading the April 7th, 2021 planning commission hearing minutes, I noted Chair Taylor, now chair council person Taylor stated that she's not in favor of reszoning open space. Commissioner Draculich stated he could quote support development in a lot of areas but not at the loss of open space end quote. Commissioner Gower could not make finding B. Substantial conformance with the master plan. He also stated taking away open space without mitigating the loss is a problem. A solid mitigation plan is needed. End quote. Commissioner Johnson also stated he could not make finding B. Commissioner Velto stated, quote, "If the owner of the golf course were at the table and trying to develop it, it would be easier to make the findings because there might be able to be a condition that would ensure the golf course continues to exist." End quote. Well, we now have the owner at the table, but without any assurance that the golf course remains PGOS in perpetuity. After thoroughly reviewing three iterations of the SPD handbook and numerous inquiries with staff, any reasonable planning professional would conclude that this application lacks the necessary content and required impact analysis for noise, lighting, mature trees, and viewheds and offers insufficient mitigation measures for those impacts for traffic and the loss of open space. The staff analysis recommendations are not supported by the studies as evidenced by the application. And furthermore, the applicant manipulated the meaning and intent of numerous master plan goals and policies to support a recommendation for approval, including GP 2. A 2.2B, 2.4A, 2.3E, GP 3.1, 3.1 C, 3.13B. Misrepresenting the intent of city goals and policies to support a position is a violation of the AICP code of ethics and professional conduct. The real fear is how does this body ever recommend no to the future request to change PGOS to a different zoning if you say yes now. Thank you. >> Jory Benjamin followed by Margaret Crowley followed by Herby Mcichael. >> Hi, good evening and thank you. My name is Jory Benjamin. I just have a few things I wanted to touch on. One was the uh that the traffic study does not take into consideration the apartment building that is going to be built right across the street from um the the resort site. Um and as you've heard, both are going to ingress egress off of Plumis. Um I don't know how many of you have visited the site, but if you have visited the site that's in question, the ingress egress are almost right across the street from each other. So it's a failure to account for the the increase of all the traffic that's will come from the resort. We already have the apartment building being built. Um also, um I read the comments in the redline version of this application and it appears that the planning is doing the job of the developer instead of reviewing and accepting or rejecting. Um and why would you accept an application that last that lacks lacks substance and accountability? And um it seems it seems as though that the neighborhood it's that that we're you want to keep us in the dark about what's really going on. I don't feel like it's been um the application is very uh very loose. Um lastly, I want to also state to Mr. Derling, nobody has reached out to us to talk to us, the group about um talking about what could or happen here in the you know with your applications. So I reject that and I wanted to thank Mr. Duncan. We do enjoy your golf course and really the neighborhood appreciates it or they wouldn't be here trying to save it. and a boutique hotel maybe, but this is not a boutique hotel. It's a resort. So, it could be the company you're keeping that's making this a little more difficult. Anyway, thank you, >> Margaret Crowley, followed by Irvia Mcichael, followed by Steven Gil. >> Um, before you start, please keep all your comments associated with the agenda item that we have tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening. My name is Margaret Crowley. I live on the course. Um, I have been an attorney here in town for 34 years with a practice focusing on mediation. As you have heard, there are many compelling reasons to recommend denial of this application. It is important, however, for safe lorage that this record reflect the efforts that we have made to work with Duncan Golf since the initial application was filed. While the course was purchased with full knowledge of its PGOS designation, we do recognize that it is a private business. Every business owner looks to expand income. It should not, however, be at the expense of reducing PGOS, creating multiple problems for the surrounding neighborhood and wreaking additional traffic havoc traffic havoc as the proposed development would certainly do. It is in everyone's interest for the course to stay in operation. It is equally important to be good neighbors. With that in mind, Save Lake hired council in an attempt to explore is there some kind of happy medium here. It was not an easy decision to pursue negotiation. Lacage Golf Course has been a part of Reno's landscape for over 50 years. As our community grows, open space, especially that enjoyed by Reno and local [clears throat] residents daily, is critical to all of us. Giving up even an inch is difficult. Nevertheless, I know from the hundreds of negotiations that I have facilitated, it's important to explore all options, especially with your neighbors. Based on Duncan's repeated assurances that the proposed development is meant to ensure the course stays open, it seemed reasonable that an area of agreement would be some sort of legal mechanism to preserve the golf course as open space in perpetuity. Doing so would show Duncan's good faith that this is not an attempt to open the door for development of the entire course. If that commitment could be made, say Blake hoped to work with Duncan to scale back plans, perhaps creating something that actually is compatible with the neighborhood that doesn't create the whole host of problems you've heard about tonight, while still providing Duncan with sufficient income. A win-win solution. Unfortunately, negotiations have not been successful. There is no binding commitment to not develop the golf course. And so we find ourselves here tonight, not as negotiators, but as advocates, zealously opposed to this application and its associated handbook that is rife with problems. We ask that you give this application the strict scrutiny it deserves and recommend a denial on the basis that the requisite findings cannot be made. Thank you for your time. >> Herby Mcichael followed by Steven Gil followed by Stu Colton. Hi, I'm Irby Mcichael. I uh ask that you please enter my statement into the records. I am the president of the Laker Point Condominium Association, which is directly adjacent to the west side of this property. I came here tonight to say a couple things. And the first one was that the hotel building was going to be directly with within however many feet of setback to our residents. However, I saw a map and the buildings have moved. So, I don't know what we're talking about in terms of final plans here, but it seems to be fluid. Now, the pickle ball court is directly next to us. We all know that pickle ball courts are noisy. They're directly behind uh in front of our property. Uh we've had a lot of good stock talks here, so I'm just going to talk in bullet points. The traffic about the traffic. You only talk about the traffic heading east and and the commercial development going east. Heading west, the traffic comes from Colin Ranch, Verdi coming down the big hill. I access I get to um McCarron from our project and sometimes I can't even get on it. The traffic is backed up all the way to the next light. So, this is going to cause a lot of problems more than just this little intersection. There are a lot of people that live up there. Um, the [clears throat] deed restriction, I support that. Uh, I asked the question, is gaming permanently restricted? I don't know the answer, and I don't know if you do, but we should know. Um, the golf course provides a fire break. We know the two big fires in the last 10 years have been very near our residential areas. In fact, some houses in within lacri shores burnt down. So this the fire break a uh aspect of the golf course is very important. Um and lastly I just want to say that we have trust issues. We look at what happened with the tennis courts. We look at what's happening with ranchera and the different the changes that are being made subsequent to their development. So we have significant trust issues with this whole thing. Thank you and please deny. >> Uh before the next comment sir in the back could you please exit and re-enter through security? Yes. With the >> please enter exit and re-enter through security. Thank you. Madam clerk >> Steven Gil followed by Stu Colton followed by Roger Davidson. Steven Gil, Stu Colton. >> Uh, hi. My name is Stu Colton. Uh, I am not a resident of >> St. Can you speak into the microphones? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Thank you. [cough and clears throat] I was talking into this thing. [laughter] My name is Stu Colton. I'm not a resident of Lacage. However um [clears throat] I was a member of Lacage Tennis Club since its inception with my family and we were obviously duped by uh sharp guy by the name of Chip Bulby. He duped a lot of people. Lorage got leveled, the tennis club. That was not a good thing. I don't know what the planning commission's position was on that, allowing them to build condos or town houses or whatever. That was a bad deal. Very bad deal for the people of Lorage. My wife [clears throat] and I owned two office buildings, one on Plumis and one on Ridge View. And between the apartments going in, which was Lacage Tennis Club, and this project going through is going to affect my wife and I as far as our tenants in our office buildings. And I think it behooves [clears throat] all of you guys up here and ladies to go out to McCarron. You might [snorts] park your car up there by Lorage Shores and just between 8:00 and 10:00 in the morning and just see how many how bad the traffic. I mean, I've been in Reno since 1970s. See just how bad the traffic is now going east from Lacage Shores all the way down to Lakeside. It's unbelievable. So to have Andy here tell you that it's not going to impact between the apartment complex that he represented and the golf course. Come on, let's use a little bit of common sense. I would think that would be the best thing to do in this case. Thank you. >> Roger Davidson, followed by Linda Stanton, followed by Sha Delin. Hi, I'm Roger Davidson. My wife Laura and I live on Mansona Lane overlooking this beautiful course. I am a land developer, builder, and have done residential, commercial, and industrial projects in many markets for over 50 years. All of us here know that the traffic at McLaren and McCarron and Plumis is a mess. Together with a last approval, you're going to pile about 4,000 more trips a day on an F intersection. one of the two worst in town. So, it's notable. So, will the project have a real second entrance on McCarron as any project I've ever seen like it would have to have? No, it won't. Well, so that exit and entrance won't have any axel lanes, del lanes, and anything that's really meaningful to get traffic in and out. No, it won't. So, yeah, traffic overload is it's an inconvenience. But it puts people in jeopardy. Accidents, fires, and medical emergency don't always happen in hours of off traffic. So, health and safety are paramount. But the real question here is what the heck is the city's commitment to open space? In ' 06, the city council reszoned the course, all of it, to open space. Their reasons were to align the use with zoning ordinance. Great. And preserve the property as an open space amenity. Great decision. Now the city contemplates a partial reszone to SPD. SPD is the opposite of open space. Saying this process is in alignment with a 2006 process is nonsense. It's the opposite. None of us wish harm to Duncan's golf business. We just don't want to lose the open space cottified 20 years ago that protects both the course and the character of the area because once it's eroded, it'll be gone and it'll be gone forever. We're assured there are no current plans to develop. Well, how about the previous one that requested the entire course be changed to SPD? That was sort of like we've got to burn the village down to save it. Well, that wasn't saving the course. It appears that a claim of economic and community benefits trumps open space. But what if the community members don't see community benefit? What's left? Tax revenue? Is the lure of the revenue sometime down the road enough to get this approval? My last comment is for Tom. For me as a developer, Tom, you've stated your current facilities are outdated. Today, financing, site work, and vertical construction are an all-time high. Consider what a lot of developers and owners do. Remodel, refurbish, improve, make improvements that are appropriate for your use, your clientele, your location, your neighbors. Can all be done with less capital, less time, less negative impact. Maybe you've already considered this. If you have if you've rejected it, I'd like you to consider it again. And I'd urge all my neighbors to support something like this as well. Thank you very much. Linda Stanton followed by Shawn Develin followed by Anne Barnett. Linda Stanton. All right. Sean Develin. Yeah. For the record, my name is Shawn Develin and I'm a Laker Shore resident. I've uh lived in Lakewood Shores for about 21 years now. And uh I was uh pleased enough to find my dream home when I was younger. You know, I'm a little more aged, a little more wise. Um and no offense to the Duncan and their pursuit of building their business. Um but what I see happening here is um a little bit of a danger issue and a travesty for those who live there. It's almost like a movie. As I look around, I got friends and neighbors. I haven't heard any of my friends and neighbors come up here and say, "Build. let's build this hotel. They don't want it, right? And if there's weight in the evidence of people coming here and speaking out against it, it sits behind me, right? Not to include the Duncans who are trying to build a business and God bless them, but at the end of the day, it's not wanted. So, as somebody who's involved in the medical world, I fear for the safety of my neighbors. I know that EMS will be impacted. I know that our ability to basically block fires naturally with natural fire breaks may be lost. And that the interruption in people's daily business, whether it's wasting an extra 5 minutes a day sitting in traffic, that means something. It means something for all of us. Nobody came out here in the rain to hold signs, to get sympathy from you. We just want a good, honest evaluation of what's put in front of you and to make a really good, honest decision. If this was your neighborhood and I sat in your position, I would take due count of what I was doing and what I was voting for because it matters. These are our homes. This is where we live, where we want to stay. So, please listen when we say we're in opposition to you reszoning this area. Thank you. >> And Barnett, followed by Jacquellyn Bennett, followed by Donald White. Commissioners, for the record, my name is Anne Barnett. I am a second generation physician taking care of Reno residents. So, I want to talk a little bit about the human impact of this because this is my life's work. This was my father's life's work. and taking away green spaces hurts people. Okay, Reno was recently named as one of the fastest warming cities in the country and the way to mitigate that is to create [clears throat] more green space. So, your your planning um whoever that was that uh presented your your planning recommendations said this seems reasonable because the zoning is adjacent to some commercial zoning. I beg you to to look at this from the opposite perspective that because we are adjacent to this commercial zoning, we have an even greater obligation to protect the green spaces and maybe even to create a buffer. There's there are real psychological and physical impacts to removing our green spaces. Everybody has been talking about the traffic implications and just on a human level, we have a pretty aged population in in this part of town and EMS getting there matters and seconds and minutes matter. Okay, we're talking about strokes and heart attacks. Minutes matter. So, if you approve this, you are threatening the lives of all of us. you're threatening the lives of these people because EMS is not able to get there quickly enough. And I have to deal with the aftermath of that. The people affected and their families have to deal with the aftermath of that. So, I'm begging you, please consider this. Please consider all of the implications of voting yes for this. And I strongly urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you. Jacquellyn Bennett, followed by Donald White, followed by Greg Jones. Jacquellyn. Okay, we'll move to Donald White. Thank you. My name is Donald White for the record. Uh I live on the back nine. Um, I'm speaking tonight in opposition to the Lakers Resort Project LDC25-000061 on the grounds that the proposal does not conform to the master plan goals and policies related to open space and recreation. Proposed zoning change conflicts with many master plan policies promoting the protection and expansion of parks, greenways, and open spaces PGOs's is contrary to RMC 18.08 08304 sub e sub1 1808304 subd sub 1 and 1808504 subd sub2. The American Planning Association APA broadly defines open space as land that is generally free from intensive development and used for recreational, environmental or resource protection purposes or as a buffer to growth and development. It is a positive element for urban growth not just a negative space for non-building. Open space includes both public and private areas and can be found in residential areas, rural areas, and urban areas. Open space is not just a buffer zone between development, is also a vital resource for recreational activities. Improving quality of life and protecting natural beauty. The APA recognizes open space as a positive element for urban growth, not just a space to be avoided during development. They believe open space can serve as a tool for controlling development and promoting sustainable growth. Nowhere did I find any master plan policies that promote a mixeduse/ hotel resort development in the middle of existing residential neighborhoods. I urge you to to reject the applicant's proposal on the basis that it does not support the master plan goals and policies for protection of open space. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this important issue. I have a moment left though. I I did pick up on something. I don't mean to pick on Miss um Palotti, I think her name is. Um but I did pick up on when she was speaking, she asked what we're what we are asking for. I think she's supposed to be neutral as a assistant planner as your staff and she said what we're asking for when she was presenting her thing today. Also, uh, as a seasoned trial attorney, um, some things need to go on the record sometimes, and Miss Clott's constantly making faces of consternation when she doesn't agree with something. >> Chair, before we continue, I just want to let everyone know we have a couple more um, cards from those who request to speak in chambers. Um, after that, we'll pull the Zoom crowd and see who would like to provide comment, and then I'll read through the names of those who have provided comment but do not wish to speak. Um, next up is Greg Jones, followed by Marggo Piskovich, followed by Francisco Dofelise. Before we hear the next public comment, there will be no more discussion of individuals or their character or their expressions in these chambers tonight. We will stick our comments to the item on the agenda or you will be asked to leave. >> Greg Jones. Okay. Marggo Piskovich. Next up is Francisco Doofiliz. Okay. Mary Moore. >> Uh staff, could you please confirm that there are no more uh folks waiting outside to be admitted? >> Uh I'm not sure, but we can move to Zoom if you'd like now that they've heard their names out in the lobby. We've got two people on Zoom. >> So, does that mean we have completed our uh request for Those are all the requests I have to speak. I have other requests in opposition not to speak, so I'll read their names into the record. >> Okay, perfect. Please proceed with Zoom. >> Okay, we'll move to Zoom. If you're going to comment, just come up, fill out a card or just get ready. >> What was your name? >> Okay, >> please raise your hand if you have not spoken and you are in chambers yet. Okay, thank you. So, we'll we'll get to you. Uh we we're going to zoom and we'll get back to the one remaining comment in chambers. First up we have Donna Keats. Don, it looks like your mic is unmuted. If you'd like to begin speaking and state your name for the record. If you're speaking, we can't hear you. Okay, we'll move to our other participant on Zoom Zoom, Kamal Abuhan. Kamal, when you're ready, just unmute your mic and state your name for the record. >> Okay, for the record, my name is Kamal Abuhan. I'm at 6402 Mayan Avenue. Um, that's wart five. I'm a little bit far away. I am an outdoor enthusiast. I'm a mountain biker and generally the area in question that you're talking about is what is on my route. I generally u come from steamboat trail and uh I over overlook the Calahan storage area. I roll through there head down uh Evans Creek and I drop down right into that area. So I have pretty intimate knowledge of the traffic situation there and I have to say it's quite busy. I'd like to get access to the Beldonni uh ranch trail, but it's right now impossible. There's a ranch or some place that blocks the way. So, I really for me the routes are important. When I roll through there, uh it's just really busy. I mean, traffic-wise, it's busy busy. And whenever I can, I'll get on the sidewalk. I have some routes that I'll do that takes me back up the hill that connects me to Steamboat and then I go home. Uh so the big thing is that the beauty of the area it's a gorgeous area. It's absolutely beautiful. It has character and by creating these commercial areas it has the potential for destroying this character and uh and that in my opinion directly affects the property value of the area. I would I would expect that every single resident in that beautiful area, which I will never certainly never have access to, I still have empathy for them because their property values may sink because of this commercial area that will bring traffic. Now, with the city council, we just got through a bunch of meetings about the concerts during uh during um Halloween and and I know from living uh just as as a renter here in Reno that the building codes for insulation in these in these properties are close to nil. The walls are thin, super thin. Sound propagates, so I can understand the uh the situation residents are having regarding to regarding sound. So I I can't say whether I support it or not. I'm not a resident of the area. I can just tell you based on my observation of just being an outdoor enthusiast that um uh you should look into you want to maintain the character of your community. I know I'm from New York City. I'm from San Francisco, California. have multiple uh residential locations. I know what growth is like and I know when these when these cities ma are at the maximum of their uh their potential and the and the park like we have central park is the most important outlet that will allow people to um you know to to to enjoy their communities. So as you build in and you build in you remove these parks and these open spaces these are going to this is going to be a problem. You have people moving out of houses because of noise problems. And I can tell you that that that May that uh car that that boulevard is so loud just with the cars that are driving on it right now. The decibel levels have to be through the roof there. You need space for that. And I noticed on the map too, you have some there's a lake there. And I one thing I have to say about lakes because I used to live in a boat in Valleo is that sound travels especially over bodies of water. And with that said, thank you very much everyone and good luck and hopefully you'll come up with a good solution. >> We'll move on to Donna Keats. >> Donna just There you go. Can you hear us, Donna? We can't hear you. Okay, we have another card in person. We'll come back to Donna. Um, Don Zucker Um, I'm writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed approval of of this application. My concerns focus on land use compatibility, environmental impact, and compliance with Nevada law. The proposed resort size and operations, including late night activities, a rooftop bar, outdoor events, increased commercial traffic are fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. These changes would introduce significant noise, light, air pollution threatening the peace and character of nearby homes. Environmental and quality of life concerns. The development would reduce the quality of life for nearby residents. You've heard it from many of the previous speakers. The application disregards substantial public opposition as documented in the public comments appendices [clears throat] that you all have read. The Reno 26 strategic plan emphasizes the value of preserving PGOS. But the staff report dismisses this priority. Reno as also as pre previously discussed uh were the fastest warming city in the US and converting PGOS to commercial use will worsen the urban heat island effect. Maintaining existing PGOS zones is essential for mitigating rising temperatures. violations of Nevada law NRS278.250 2 in parentheses. I'm not going to read a lot of quotes. They're all in the staff report. The proposal does not meet several statutory requirements contrary to the recommendation. For example, protection of existing neighborhoods. The resort's commercial development threatens the safety and character of nearby communities, failing to promote public health and welfare. Conservation of open space, that's obvious. It's converting it from green space to something else. Land use compatibility. Um, it ignores the area's physical limitation being in the foothills and and its established character replacing residents green views with four-story hotel transportation planning in the absence the absence of tra timely traffic mitigation. This has all been discussed, but I do want to just note that only 42% of RTC projects are timely completed with an average of 7 months delay. So, we're not talking about nine years. We're talking about possibly 10. And even the traffic study presented by the applicant notes that their >> Your time is up. >> Their plans are fiscally constrained. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Try again with Donna. Donna, can you unmute your mic? >> Do we have any other public comments online? >> I don't have any online. I have another in person. Um Karen Clafy. >> Hello. My name is Karen Clafy and I live on the Lakeidge golf course on the 11th green. And I'm going to bring up something that hasn't been brought up yet because I'm very confused. I got home from vacation and I had the little yellow card and I said, "Well, the yellow card's only supposed to go to the people within so much distance. So why am I getting this card?" card. And when I looked at it, it actually showed lines 11, 12, and 13 on the golf course being changed to mixed use. So, if that's the case, nobody's talked about it. And I have a card that said it also included more acreage than they're talking about. They're only talking about the 12 acres, but my card said the entire plot that is 12 acres plus 11, 12, and 13 on the golf course is to be changed to mixed use. If that's the case, we have a problem. Thank you. Okay, with that, that's all the requests to speak that I have, but I'm going to read through the names and positions of everyone else who has submitted comment. Um, and then we can come back and see if we can get Donna's mic to work. Um, so we had Greg Jones. I'm going to just go through opposition. Greg Jones, uh, Marggo Piskovich, Francisco Doofile, Mary Moore, Steven Gil, Linda Stanton, Jacqueline Bennett, um, Virginia Williamson, Robin Kinsel, Mike Bryant, John Stuceland, Deborah Cavistrini, uh, Michael McGee, Katherine Rogers, Lynn Gillespie, Arlene Bliss, uh, Ross Bivvens, James Davis, Paty Pockinelli, Linda Juan, Robert Fulton, Senior, uh, Loth Lieberstein, uh, Kathy and Rick Theyer, uh, Kim L was wishing to does not wish to make a statement but is in favor. Um, back to opposition, Valerie Primo, uh, Mike Mcgara, Judy Hair, Katherine Wilson, uh, Sandra Bankston, Chris Clume, Judith Loose, Lex Douglas, Sarah and Douglas Leair, Bill Powell, Marielle Dicki, Gerilyn Hogan, Britney and Sha Thaylor, Alexandra Raols, uh, Beth Dory, Alexander Waters, uh, Renell Gredc, Susan Buckwald, and Julie Jones. Um, with that, we can see if Donna is online and wishing to make public comment. If there's anyone who I read your name and you'd wish to speak, please raise your hand or come up to the desk. Donna, are you online and able to unmute your mic? You're unmuted. We can't hear you. >> Is there any anyone else in chambers who wishes to speak? >> This will conclude the public comment uh time for this item. Due to the length of this, we will take a 5m minute break and reconvene. We will we will commence at 8:20. >> [music] >> Hi, I'm Monica Kirch. I am the [music] director of how >> [music] [music] >> Hi, I'm Monica Kirch. I am the director of housing and neighborhood development for the city of Reno. The rapid rehousing pilot program is [music] a program that the city of Reno started in coordination with Volunteers of America and the Reno Housing Authority. Programs like the rapid rehousing pilot [music] program are important to volunteers of America because it gives us an opportunity to catch individuals who are otherwise potentially falling between the cracks as far as [music] services go. The Reno Housing Authority assists nearly 15,000 Wo County residents through its traditional housing programs. Yet we know there are many more who need assistance. The Reno Housing [music] Authority supports the rapid rehousing pilot program in two ways. Uh the first way is through a financial contribution to support [music] half the salary of the service coordinator who works directly with clients at uh Village on [music] Sage. The second way that we support the program is by um ensuring that clients are on one of our HA's weight lists [music] prior to being housed at Village on Sage program. We will now proceed with questions from the commission. And as I stated previously, this is a recommendation to city council that is being rendered tonight. So it is not a final decision. As such, and just to remind everybody, regardless of how the vote is tonight, the city council has the final authority for this decision. As such, there is no appeal process for the recommendation that is rendered tonight. It will advance to city council regardless of what that recommendation is. So we will now proceed with questions from the commission. I am sure there will be many questions tonight. So I kindly ask that you uh limit your questions to three uh in a row and then afford someone else the opportunity to proceed with their questions. Who would like to start? Commissioner. >> Sure. Thank you so much chair. Uh I do first want to start off by just a a general sentiment of uh impressed by both the residents for their organization. Obviously you've done your homework, but equally to the applicant and his representation. Um and I do want to extend an apology for any uh I think comments that were slung your way because I think we we should all be doing better. Uh and that I think extends the sentiment that the chair expressed earlier as well. Um, I did want to ask the chair if it'd be appropriate if uh Mr. Marshall was open to it. I did want to uh ask a question of them to kind of help level set my further questions. >> Uh, city attorney's office, do we typically grant that request? >> And I can rephrase it to someone else if necessary. >> Yeah, we do allow that. >> Please proceed, Commissioner. >> Mr. I [clears throat] mean, we we uh we've heard a lot of feedback, comments, and I've had the privilege of being able to speak to both residents, yourself and the applicant and um his representation. And so, I guess simply put, I wanted to understand if you could summarize in specific terms what changes or improvements you've seen the applicant make in response to public input so far. um because I'm trying to ensure the record accurately reflects what progress, if any, has been made through the outreach process and give credit where credit's due all around and see where we stand. >> Um to be blunt, >> yes, >> it's difficult to figure out what has come um from the applicant. I think staff has actually made some changes. >> Okay. >> Uh to the betterment. Um I I can't remember offhand which ones they were but you know more importantly I think uh what we want to make certain that we don't get into here is some sort of uh tit fortat negotiation on you know what can be tweaked here there we have >> significant issues with the application as a whole. >> Okay. Are there certain things that come to mind though? And if if they don't, it's okay. I'll ask Miss Picotti as well like because I think it's important for this body to understand the evolution of an application where where there's still opportunities for improvement if any. Uh because we're not here to I think for me personally to outright deny something as much as see how we can better applications whenever possible. Uh, and I I think >> I'm sorry. It's really difficult for me to hear when there's chatter in this section of the room. So, I'd like to hear your response, Mr. Marshall. >> I'm sorry. I'm also sometimes a little I'll try to speak up. Um I think the one of the key things to remember is kind of what I brought up before which is the starting point >> of in this case assigning MS or multi-use suburban as the base zoning that then there was efforts to cabin in what that allowed. When you start with allowing a whole lot, I personally believe you shouldn't get that much credit for bringing something back into, you know, the range of something that might even be considered. The question really is not who's who made what change, but whether or not the end product recognizes or constitutes a compatible use. And that's what I think the focus should be on. Uh, and for all the [snorts] testimony you've heard, I think unanimously, um, we haven't gotten there yet. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. I appreciate that. Uh, while I do have some related questions, I'm going to yield for a second and let others chime in. >> Uh, Commissioner Vanto, >> uh, thank you. I, my questions, uh, I want to start with, um, with Leah, and I I'd ask that the master plan be put up on the screen. Um, so we're going to go through this 300page document word by word. >> Oh, no. I I do want to focus on one part. If you could possibly go to page 30 of the document. So, Leah, this document's massive. Uh, I spent a lot of time the last few days going through it and I this chart in particular really jumped out at me and I want to talk to you about it. If you look to the Is that the right? Yeah. to the right side of the chart, you see designations of regional centers in downtown and then what appears to be the kind of like Virginia and in McCarron. Um I don't recall us ever I don't recall talking about this or hearing about this in the past. Can you kind of explain to me what what that means and what the implication is in this section of the master plan? >> Um yes. Are we just talking about what those regional centers are or these priority locations for infill and redevelopment based on those um those regional centers? >> Yeah, I guess it it's two parts. What what does that mean? What is that and what is the implication of that with the master plan? So as you can see on the screen um the master plan which is a 300page document has identified these priority locations based on uh essentially proximity to the regional corridor but specifically that if you're looking under 2.2A there the very first thing it says is downtown and convention center regional areas. So those are those two big sort of t blue targets that you see and then that's Virginia Street that lines them. So when we're looking at places that we want to um establish locations for infill and redevelopment, the priority areas are anywhere in the downtown and conventional regional centers. So that's those blue areas. the innovation areas which are generally north of McCarron. Um redevelopment districts which are kind of downtown and then along that Virginia Street corridor and then along the urban corridors uh which would be Virginia Street um and uh portions of Fourth Street and I think Mil Street's on there and a couple of others as well. In this particular case, this particular site is uh gosh, I think it's a little less than a quarter mile from one of these regional centers. And again, being that this is on McCarron, which is our major arterial that goes around the city, um that's sort of where we look at these targeted locations for infill. >> And can I ask a followup, chair? I get three. So, I get one more last one. I've already asked two. I shouldn't have clarified. Uh so I guess my my question then would be how does this chart and these policies in the master plan how did that incorporate into your analysis of whether there is master master plan conformance? >> Um basically what I looked at here is um there are limited areas on McCarron that are really available for infill at this point um and especially ones that are within a quarter mile of that regional center. So when I looked at this and I looked at the proximity to the regional center that established mixed uh suburban mixed use that runs along the southern side of McCarron and sort of that corridor, this could be prioritized as one of those areas. >> Thank you. >> Who would like to speak next? I know you have questions. I'll ask my questions. Um, they're for the applicant. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Uh, one of the comments that came out of the public is the loss of open space and the consequences what that means to loss of green space and urban heat effect that it can have negative impacts on urban heat effect. We know that is a very serious matter for our region. So, um I appreciate that there was a slide that had some new sustainability measures um that we were going to be offered. Can you show me, tell me, indicate where those will go into the handbook? Is it going to be a new section? What is what all are those pick and choose or is it an all of the above? >> Um for the record, Andy Derling with Wood Rogers again. So we are proposing that all of this language would go into a new section uh in the SPD. So all of these um aspects would be included then in the development. And so to your point of um Urban Heat Island, I think there's a few things um at play here. I think adding in the sustainability section um definitely helps. Um we already had also uh the preservation of existing mature trees uh which is kind of part of that as well. Um and as well as I would add um reducing some of the parking down to just what's required and no excess. Um so we're we're getting rid of some asphalt in lie of additional landscaping in that respect as well. >> So gosh I don't want to get up on my third one but here this last one about solar or renewables for pool heating to the extent feasible. Could you just sort of what what is the extent feasible? just that you know um I guess we have not explored that. Obviously solar heating for pools is a pretty common thing. Um we think that is definitely feasible. Uh and then but we we threw in >> [snorts] >> um knowing that this region um has you know other opportunities for you know ground source heating even geothermal resources which are known to be I don't know if they're this far south but known to be sort of in proximity here. uh if that's an option, we'd like to explore that if it's feasible. Just that it wouldn't necessarily only be solar. It could be some other uh way. >> Okay. Well, I'll ask later about guarantees, but um >> so, you know, I'm really taking sort of a design standpoint here. So what's great about a specific plan as opposed to traditional resoning is that you can include specifics. So you have this handbook. So let's talk design architecture. Um we saw three concept elevations. One was Grace Crossing in Truckucky, one was Edgewood, which is South Lake area, and one was Nakoma up in Portola. Um, one thing I think with residential adjacency, which is the heart of this issue of this project is what is it going to look like? Scale, mass, color, texture, please, I think for the sake of the people who will be living next door, can you give us as close to, if not exact, like what is it to be expected of this development? >> Sure. So I think I shared during u my presentation right that these are sort of the inspiration um that we can kind of point to locally um to say you know these are not out of the realm of um u um possibility right uh when you look at Nakoma or even Grace Crossing really Grace Crossing I think is um uh much more similar I think we're drawing a lot of inspiration from that 129 rooms we're at 100 plus the 15 villas pretty comparable in size um looking at you know their rendering four stories um of very attractive kind of modern um you know or contemporary mountain high desert type architecture which I think we're starting to see a lot of you know you know uh pallets coming forward. Um we did include in the handbook um we did include in the handbook um a number of different architectural um standards. So on the left, those are standards from the handbook. Right now that the color palette has to be natural tones um uh have diff, you know, distinct variations in textures uh and a number of different um design elements that we kind of give some um recommendations on. And then we did have in these are some kind of again inspirational type renderings that uh were provided. We kind of with staff w talked back and forth and didn't include them. Um but these this is the um um direction that we want to see the the development head. And then for um the villas themselves, this would be kind of again inspirational of of what that is um with those again those those standard the standard texts that's in there uh would be applicable. That's the text is already in the SPD. >> It's probably someone else's turn. >> Commissioner Delvier, >> thank you. I have actually questions for Leah. Thank you. Um so obviously beforehand and reading some of the commentary and hearing the public comments tonight, this has come up several times and that is that uh you know in 2021 uh this commission unanimously recommended denial of converting this public space. And so I'm just trying to understand are there any specific conditions or policies that have changed since then or is there anything in this particular application itself that might have mitigated or eliminated um that the issues that came up for why it was denied back in 2021. >> Thank you Commissioner DelviR Leah Picotti for the record. It's a good question. So, um, there there are some things that have changed and I can let the applicant talk about the driving range and the town homes being built and all of that stuff, but I think for us fundamentally, we um look at this is as supporting an existing business and ancillary to an existing use and an opportunity to bring some non-conforming existing uses that are on site into conformance. And then at the same time sort of reigning in some of those um things that are allowed in PGOS along with the existing residential adjacency standards to um to come to something that exceeds the code standards um but still supports the existing business. Well, maybe I wasn't here for the 2021. I actually started right after that. [snorts] But I think in 2021 that application was not denied. Let's let's be clear about that. It was um went to the planning commission. The planning commission recommended denial. It would have moved forward to city council as with any other zoning map amendment. And at that point, the applica the applicant withdrew that application. that I believe was for 46 town homes if I'm remembering correctly. It's a little late at night. Um, so we were looking at essentially a single family subdivision, not ancillary to the use of the golf course, but just more homes on the golf course. >> Great. Thank you. And thank you for the clarification on the non actual non-denial um [clears throat] that the that it was actually withdrawn. So, and then this I have a couple of other questions. I have some traffic questions, but I'm going to let other people speak to that first. Um, but one question I had was cuz somebody brought it up was the delivery route. I'm just curious where how will these delivery trucks get to where they need to go? >> Uh, it's a good question and I'll defer to the applicant on >> Thank you. >> U, thank you for the record, Andy Derling. and get to a site plan we can point to. Um, so all all access is coming off of Golf Club Drive, right? That is the primary access. Um, as was mentioned, um, we had hoped for an access to McCarron. Um, but ENDOT's not supportive of that at this time. Um, so all of the um, it's hard to point. Um, but all of the access will come from the east there off of Golf Cup Drive, whether it's patrons or deliveries. That's where they're coming now, right? And I think it's it's worth noting, right, there's existing restaurant, bar, um special events, you know, a number of special events that occur here. Uh and so all of the support for that is currently using that access. Um golf club drive was constructed to serve the golf course, golf club drive. Um and it hasn't been in until the last few years that the residents were built on there that are also use utilizing that. >> Thank you, G. I mean I I assume that the the number of deliveries will go up though. I I I recognize that there's businesses now though there but >> yes I would assume so too. >> Okay. Thank you. That's it for now. >> I will ask a quick question to that pertaining to the um uh access there. So the the site will likely need two points of ingress and egress. the you you you're going to have one and I'm going to ask about traffic later, but just getting to access right now. The the you have the access that's fire on McCarron. Um do you have a permanent right to the access at Golf Club Drive to provide for fire because you've got a tall non-residential building? >> Yes. So Golf Club drive is is an existing easement. Uh it's a private roadway that's maintained by, you know, the property owners that utilize it. Um and yes it is we have we uh Duncan Golf the owner of a property has access easements uh across that property. Um so that is for their public access to to serve the golf course and and future development as well. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll yield for now. >> Commissioner Bisera Commissioner Bera please. >> Commissioner Williams did you have one if you want to go ahead. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you chair. Um, yeah, just uh I I guess Leah, it'll be for you. It'll be kind of a piggyback off of what Commissioner Delviar was asking. Um, because I don't think I I got a clear answer. Maybe it's a similar question. So, uh, deserves to be followed up on, but in 2021, uh, there was that similar project that I think was has been referenced for this project site or in the area. Was staff's recommendation denial for that one in order to preserve PGOS? Um, thank you for the record before your time. >> But I I only know what I read in the staff report and that was a recommendation of denial. Yes. >> Okay. So then what I'd like to understand is like moving to 2025 present day. What what's why is the policy shifted uh to I guess not consider the inherent value of PGOS? And I guess in simple quantifiable terms, could you I guess clarify to what specific public benefits this proposal provides that outweigh, you know, competing priorities within the master plan policy and goals like preserving PGOS. >> Yes. So, let me kind of I'm a little tired, so let me kind of tackle that one at a time here. So, our policy on PGOS has not changed. Um when I eva when I am assigned an application and I evaluate that application um I I have two choices. I can recommend approval or I can recommend denial. I I am not the person that makes that decision. And in this particular case, you guys are in the same shoes I'm in. You're you're a recommending body. Um and it's it's black or white. We recommend approval. We recommend denial. So we as staff can work with the applicants and try to craft something that staff can support or we can say no and we can recommend denial. In this case, we being myself and the rest of the team here at the city and the applicants we >> all worked together and we read every single letter of concern and opposition that came in and we together looked at how we could mitigate those concerns and those impacts to the residents. So when somebody when we got something in that said we're concerned about the light, we sat down and we looked at the lighting and we said how can we how can we make this better? How can we improve this? And so it's not that our policy on PGOS has changed. It's that we have worked together to craft something that's better than what currently exists. So, while this is open space, and we've had this conversation before, and when you look at PGOS, what it specifically says is that it's generally public parks, but could also be privately owned recreational facilities such as this. Again, this doesn't have to remain, this driving range does, this former driving range doesn't have to remain green open space. it can be developed with nothing but pickle ball courts right now. >> Right. >> And so when I'm looking at this and and we are working on this application, we are looking at those competing master plan policies. We are looking at current zoning code and we are trying to determine what the best course of action is for the future of this particular site. >> Great. Thanks. And I do appreciate, you know, bettering the project and and I think I've se kind of mentioned that the applicant has been open to feedback and so forth. I guess what I'm getting at here and I maybe haven't heard so correct or excuse me if if I'm just missing something, but again in simple terms, what's the specific public benefit for this SPD request? >> Well, I would say that we are um supporting existing businesses. We are increasing the residential adjacency standards that are in existence today. And we're creating economic benefits and for the community by bringing in tourism and offering jobs and everything else that would be associated with. >> Great. Thanks, Leah. If I can be afforded just one more and I don't want to steal the chair's thunder on traffic, but I do have a traffic related one. >> Go ahead. >> Uh, great. Thank you. Uh, moving on to kind of like traffic in the future. There was talk about m the McCarron and the widening of McCarron at some point in the future, near midterm. What's what would be the level of service after McCarron is widened when it does happen, whether that's next year or eight years from now or whatever. >> That's a great question for a traffic engineer. >> Perfect. Uh well, we have one on the dis. I'm just kidding. I've I've reviewed the study, but the Mr. Chelson. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Lauren Chilson with GCW traffic engineer. [clears throat] The once McCarron is widened, the level service will return to D. That's validated in the cumulative condition 2050 scenario uh with the project and the and the widening it shows level service D. >> Thank you sir. And just for clarity, is the current level of service D today or >> currently it's currently it's it's E as it sits today in our [clears throat] future scenarios it goes into F as has been mentioned numerous times and then with widening returns to D. >> Okay, great. Thank you so much. >> I think that might be a good leeway into traffic. So the um I had I had a meeting as I stated previously with Save Lacage and the applicant and in both of those meetings I stated that I did not believe the um application as presented in the traffic study did not meet that finding as presented as it is online. You're looking at a level of service F upon project buildout and the RTC standard is that of an E. This is a regional road. So at least I would interpret that. I recognize it's also NDOT, but that standard would need to be met per the finding because that's what we're tasked with making. Um, can you tell me a little bit about that? And obviously you have a condition that you have suggested. So, um, give me a little bit of light on that. Obviously, we're talking about a period between that between that, uh, widening project taking place potentially and we have to approve that. So please uh give me some more detail about this this proposed condition. >> Yes. Again, Lauren Chilson, thank you for the question. It is it's an important clarification. So I want to start by saying the project [clears throat] is responsible as as are all others for mitigating its incremental impact. A small project like this cannot solve a regional issue. It does have a responsibility, however, to mitigate its incremental impact. And that's our intent tonight. [snorts] That will be done in two ways. First, regional road impact fee payment. Uh that's estimated at $250,000. That is the standard practice in this community for mitigation of small projects. However, recognizing the concerns of the community, we want to be a responsible developer in the um we are prepared to offer this traffic mitigation which specifically addresses um the approach that our traffic will use and mitigates um our increment in addition to that impact fee. So, this is in addition to the impact fee. It effectively I could read it if you wish, but you can read it. essentially says if we get there before [clears throat] the RTC does, we will make this improvement so that we mitigate our impact. And I'd like to show [clears throat] just a comparison. This is really important. If I can have the overhead for just a second, please. The top table is the current is the condition without the project and without any widening. The bottom line in the table 81.1 is postmmit mitigation with the project. The point here is that we have not exacerbated the existing condition with the project including this mitigation. Right? We're back to less delay than what we started with. So we have mitigated our impact with this condition. >> So the as I I can be sympathetic to how this situation arose. I I reviewed the um acceptance letter from NDOT, which was effectively a denial letter and your initial application perhaps intended as the site plan showed that you would have a right turn lane into the site. That would have seemed commensurate with the project to me, but you know, the application that was formally stated to us said we didn't get that from NDOT and then we have no mitigations necessary. So, you know, we're at level of service F legally within the finding and I recognize that there are lawyers on both sides of this. We have to identify that incremental imp uh benefit, you know, not necessarily a um the finding legally states mitigating traffic impact. That certainly would be interpreted to be that of your project. So um the study that you would typically prepare if this were not an NDOT study would be what is called the traffic entry and access study. >> Correct. >> That show that would show a portion of what's in your study that is uh cues along Plumis. So um you've shared level of service uh improvements in that slide or the um overhead I believe. What would that do? What would this phase overlap do to the cues on Plumis? Because that would also be something uh to be construed as a nec necess excuse me necessary mitigation that the applicant should bear. >> I would agree it could be viewed that um >> what will it do to the cues on Plumis? >> Yeah, I the the entire point of this mitigation is to move traffic more efficiently in the heaviest movement in from the Plumis leg which is the right turn. So what this does is create additional green time for that northbound right turn. It's going to reduce the queue inherently by creating better operations, reducing delay on that leg. >> So can you explain what a phase overlap is to me and for the record here? Um what's that going to mean for folks who are who would be uh approaching the intersection northbound >> at Plumus and McCarron? >> Absolutely. We tried to illustrate this with the two green lines with arrows there. So what happens is when the westbound to southbound left turn movement is on the northbound right turn movement also gets a green light which it doesn't have today right you'd have to it would be in a stop condition you'd be pull up stop everyone has to stop and with this mitigation the green light would be on at the same time and it improves traffic flow through that movement >> okay thank you nothing further for now I'll let other folks >> ask a traffic question >> of course you can ask a Traffic question. >> I I am not a traffic engineer. Explain to me in very simple terms. Why is a right in right out pork chop at the bottom of Golf Club not considered which would then have the traffic going out to Ridge View so it wouldn't be backing up the hill and then the would help I would think the apartments going out the new apartment complex across the street. >> Yeah. Very honestly, we looked at a lot of options here. Um, but I think it's important to clarify that the apartment driveway is not opposite. It's actually closer to 300 feet to the south. So, they they do not align correctly. Just just for super clarity here. Um, the reason is we have uh an office building, multiple residents, uh, and other users, and we don't want to impact their access as well, right? We we want to be respectful of those other businesses, those other activities. Um, and we're not sure we want to send traffic through the rest of the neighborhood that doesn't need to be there. >> Which view is commercial? I mean, that stretch of Plumis is commercial. >> To the south is primarily apartments, um, town homes, those types of those types of properties. It's also pretty indirect and you go to Lakeside and operations at Lakeside are not tremendously better. So, you know, you could view it as what are we accomplishing? In short, we don't wish to impact adjacent property owners. >> I'll add a follow-up question to that. So, if we restricted right in access to write in right out for Golf Club Drive, what would that do to people who live on Golf Club Drive? >> Well, they'd be in order to make any movement to McCarron, they'd have to go south on Plumis, east on Ridge View, across to Lakeside, back up to Lakeside, and face a similar delay at Lakeside. So it would make their commutes longer and more burdensome. >> Certainly. >> It's not just going to impact the um the applicant here. >> Certainly. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bisera. Just going to piggyback off maybe maybe uh it's going to be for you. it's going to be traffic related and maybe uh follow up to um the chair's question, but really he asked about like what it will do to the queue, but I think the the assumption here is and correct me if I'm wrong here is that the Q is referring to only vehicle traffic. Correct. >> Correct. >> Um speaking from a multimodal transportation lens, so what does this do to other forms of transportation in that region or was that taken into account like because that particular corridor from my understanding and from my own experience I know is is a corridor that also involves a lot of cyclists and so forth. So does that get worse? Does it stay the same? Does it get improved with that uh that that turn signal? >> Uh it it stays very much the same. Okay. Uh in that we have maintained um crosswalk times on McCarron. We have maintained all bike lanes and sidewalks. Uh really the the change to cyclists and pedestrians is is minimal. >> Minimal or is it um effectively zero from an operations perspective? Is there more traffic on the road? Yes. Is that measurable? Not really. >> Okay. >> So I I would really I don't want to say it's absolutely nothing but it's near zero. >> Okay. And and there there was modeling for that for the for multimodal >> all Yes. All those modes are included in the traffic counts, included in the traffic analysis accounted for. >> Great. Thank you so much. I'm going to yield for a little while here and let the other speak. Thank you. >> I have questions for you, Leah. Someone brought up the the fact that this is a non non-gaming hotel, right, as it is right now. Um, what would it what what does it actually take to make it a gaming hotel? Like, is this in the right? >> Um, Leo Picotti, for the record. So, if they wanted to make it a gaming hotel, >> not that I think they do. I'm just >> Yeah, we we get to do this all over again. So, they'd [snorts] have to come in with an application to amend the SPD. They would have to go to the neighborhood advisory board meeting. They'd get a recommendation from staff. they'll get a recommendation from the planning commission. Two hearings at um at council and depending upon what kind of gaming there may be other requirements and triggers as well. >> Fair enough. Thank you. I just >> Commissioner Delvr if I can piggy back on that. Um >> Nevada law requires in Washington County a minimum of 300 hotel rooms for unlimited gaming. >> So the handbook is limited to 100 rooms. So, it would not allow for unlimited gaming just based on Nevada law. >> Perfect. Thank you. I just wanted clarification on that. Thank you. And then, uh, the other question I had was um Oh, yeah. So, for the the current SPD, the handbook, um, it talks about the building height and they agreed that it wouldn't be more than 55 ft. Um, but does that include the potential? Is that like the height of the building or the total height they can be there? And I'm not necessarily concerned with the plans that they might have. I'm concerned for future uses because this would the SPD goes with a new owner potentially. So like if they could have a 10-ft pad there and a 55 foot height building, then it would be 65 ft. So I'm just kind of curious what that process looks like. >> Yeah. So um they have to comply substantially with the plans that they submitted. They did submit crosssections as part of this application. I believe they were included as an exhibit showing what the height would be from the ground level. Uh they can't really deviate from that. So if they came in and they had done something like built up these pads, that would increase the base elevation which would then increase that and then they wouldn't be in general conformance with the plans that they've already submitted. >> Okay. So that and that wouldn't impact if the property was sold before something was built. That would carry on with that. Okay. Now, this that will carry on throughout as long as this SPD exists. Perfect. Thank you so much, >> Leah. I think I got something for you, Commissioner Williams, for the record. Um, speaking on that lines, what standards are in place to generally ensure that what's being presented tonight is what's going to be built and like say versus um a big box hotel. So this is what we love about SPDs are the specifics. So what we've incorporated into this exa again exceeds those Bruno Municipal Code standards. We have standards for building height but specifically we have standards for wall articulation both vertical articulation and horizontal articulation. It's a little bit of a technical aspect, but basically they have to have by code they would have to have three articulation elements on each side. Depending upon what faces a road it could be five, but basically what we've done here is we've enhanced that to five on all sides. So that kind of prevents that solid wall type look. They'll have to have something like, you [snorts] know, things that jut out or changes in texture. And then for that uh vertical articulation, they'll have to have the walls will have to be segmented. So it'll be something like what um Andy's showed for the um I just went blank on what it's called, but that that bottom hotel that's being built up there in Truckucky that has about probably five articulation standards on each side. And then on top of that um they added the the neutral colors which is not part of code but they have included into the stand the handbook as well. >> Great. Thank you. Well, I got two more if you guys don't mind. Um what if they wanted to change operations at all like say for events or for capacity the clubhouse or music um what's required of that? Let's say we want to expand those types of operations within what they currently have. >> So again, the SPD is all about the specifics. So they are subject to that site plan that they submitted. Um any sort of deviation from that [snorts] quantifiable deviation from that um under 10% could potentially be approved by the administrator. Over 10% they'll probably have to come back for some kind of amendment to the SPD. So, in other words, let's say that they build um a th00and square foot spa. Let's just make it an easy number here. They could probably expand that to about just under,00 square feet with through an administrative approval. But anything larger than that would probably be required require some kind of handbook amendment. >> Okay. Awesome. My last question is for the applicant. Mr. Derling, um my last two questions were really based on this idea of of what some are referring to a bait and switch. Um so I have an ask of you today. Um are you willing to make a modification to the handbook tonight to reduce the timeline from a maximum of 10 years to seven years? >> Um that's something I have to consult with uh my client on, but um definitely something we can entertain. I'll if you give me a minute. >> Okay. Yeah, I'm happy to have >> Please take your time. We'll we'll wait for an answer. [snorts] >> You can go ask another question and have them come back up. >> Yeah, if we Why don't we do that? So, >> well, actually, I had a question. >> Okay, we'll we'll wait. We'll wait. >> Could you maybe just repeat your question so I'm clear here? >> Yeah. I'm I'm wondering um there's you know the narrative I think I've heard the most is that there's and it's kind of in regards to the golf or the tennis club was the fact that um somebody's going to take this and do something different with it. And I think a lot of that comes out of this timeline which I even at times have wondered at seems excessive um at 10 years and I'm being told that's generally by code. Um I'm just asking today um to help mitigate some of these things which I know you guys have generally done a very good job of if you're willing to take that timeline from 10 years to seven years. >> Um yeah after discussing with the my client they would be willing to move the language in the handbook to say instead of um completion in 10 years that it would be substantial completion in seven >> substantial. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um thank you and that's all I have. I was curious what substantial means and why seven why not five? What was the rationale behind seven years? >> If that's the question for me, it's just a number I picked. >> We [laughter] were doing Hold on. We were doing questioning here, not at deliberations. So I I would suggest um maybe posing a question about a request for 5 years and then we can date uh based on any answers provided. >> Okay. I'll ask that question of the applicant if you don't mind. Um, what is substantial construction mean to you and your client and what is the minimum number of years that you could agree to? Um, so the question of substantially complete, I think, you know, we use that term phrase a lot in in um, uh, in planning. We've incorporated that into handbooks similar to this where uh, you know, you we would not want to get to a position where you know the year seven we're under construction and you have to stop, right? That's not a good situation for Mr. Duncan. That's obviously not a good situation for the community. So I suppose it would be like 51% complete, right? that they would be substantially constructed, right? We're we're referring to construction >> and then 710. What is the minimum number of years that would be agreeable? >> Seven is starting to feel a little uncomfortable um just from a standpoint of you know these these that's we're estimating this is $100 million project. Um so when you look at that from you know a design time frame of you know designing a high quality facility um and then finance getting the financing in line and and permitted and constructed you know hope we hope obviously that it would happen sooner than that. I think that is Mr. Duncan's intent. However just to give some leeway here um seven years makes us feel a little comfortable more comfortable. Can I? Um, so in a development agreement scenario, you would be coming every 24 months to give an update, a project report towards that. Is that something the applicant would be willing to do? It's not a decision making, but rather at the 2, four, six, eight year marks, an update on what the progress is towards construction and design. >> I'm getting the thumbs up that that would be >> okay. Thank you. >> So, just to be clear though, however, we don't have a development agreement. It would just be right >> a term of the SPD that within every >> two every 24 months or thereabouts, we would come to the city council, I suppose, or provide a written update to staff would be probably >> whatever the city requires for the development agreement. I'm not sure if it's a presentation with a few slides or if it's just a written memo, but something that notifies the public, for example, what the time frame is looking like. Yeah, I I mean definitely a written sort of report to staff seems totally feasible. Um rather than having to come to another hearing and you know you guys are all busy and don't want to see us all the time. Um that seems reasonable to me. >> Commissioner Bera. >> Thank you, Chair. Just a followup. I guess it could be for Andy or Mr. or or Garrett um or perhaps even Mr. again if you'd like. Uh really just kind of continues off of what I was asking uh Leah earlier around the public benefit because I know um Mr. Gordon had uh sent a a a good thorough response earlier today. Um I think responding to Mr. Marshall's uh own legal analysis and there was a statement that reszoning away from PGOS was quote more beneficial to the city than having the property be a PGOS zone, strict MS zone or residential zone. So could you elaborate on that and and how does that perspective reconcile with again the prior reasoning in 21 that PGOS holds its own inherent community value? because I'm really trying to understand how we as a commission balance those deferring considerations tonight. >> Sure. No, that's a a great question and you know, I'll defer to my colleague if he would like to add some commentary on this as well, but >> from my perspective as a professional planner, um this is um the you know, there's a lot of differences from the 2021 case to this case. Um in 2021 it was re um proposing straight zoning um with a residential development addition of town homes essentially an expansion or phase two of the hilltop town homes. Um quite frankly you know really no substantial benefit to the golf course other than that a one-time you know financial event. um this obviously being proposed and advocated for um by the Duncan family, the owner of the golf course um as a means to help solidify the legacy and the future of the golf course. Um so again going back to kind of our original intent with the SPD of including the whole golf course, the intent was always the primary use here, the driver is the golf course. this is now a um accessory and complimentary use that helps facilitate um the vitality and health of that you know that asset in our community. So from our perspective this is complementing the remainder of the open space that is the golf course. >> Great. Thank thank you Andy. I appreciate that. just a followup um kind of a pivot ever so slightly but just again I don't want to necessarily negotiate for residents but more along lines of the benefits um kind of akin to the value that a reasonzoning grants a property and the owner of a property whether it's the current property owner or future property owner but is the applicant willing to extend a sort of um I don't know benefit uh membership benefit of the sort to adjoining residents. That isn't necessarily a benefit to the individual families, but to the to the adjoining parcels because that's financial value to that property that carries over with those folks. And again, just an idea. It >> Yeah, I would have to let me check with the client real quick. >> Yeah. Yeah. And again, nothing that needs to be probably sorted out tonight, but maybe fire for thought as things move forward. that that might be good to as a suggestion since city council will will hear this one anyway and that would also be a function of >> what property owners and everything there's there's a few variables there so >> yeah just throwing it out there folks >> question I don't have a [clears throat] question I thought I might weigh in on this 2021 portion because I was there if you'd like me to I can do it now or I can wait for discussion but it >> yeah that sure >> just want to give context So obviously I was only one vote on the commission so I can't tell you exactly how everybody viewed it. Um my view of what happened in 2021 was that this was a proposal of strictly residential that was taking away a portion of the golf course to be residential. I had a lot of trouble with that because I viewed any push of residential that encroach on the golf course as making it more likely that a future request to change the zoning of the golf course would be deemed compatible with residential. So my concern was we're going to take this golf course and it's going to become a bunch of houses and there's not going to be a golf course. So any encroachment of residential onto that property I viewed as problematic because I thought it would bolster a compatibility argument in the future for more residential on the golf course. So I I do think this is a bit distinct and I can talk about that more during discussion. But that was my view at least then and I think at least at least one or two other commissioners agreed. There were others who had separate views but that was my recollection. That was why why I viewed it that way. I believe we had a somewhat of an unanswered question. Did you did you want to add something? Yes. Something something stated previously. >> Um so to Commissioner Bera's question talking with Mr. Duncan, um yes, it is their intention to to have um incentives or or some sort of program, right, for um for adjacent homeowners. What that looks like, how that looks like, I don't know. Um, so I think what we would suggest is maybe that's something that we can work on between now and city council to incorporate uh into the SPD or or condition or something. >> I think that's all the best we can ask for tonight and in this case is you know just uh acting in good faith and I I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Yeah, I have a Yeah, please. >> Commissioner Dalvar, >> I have questions for Leah. So, this this was a concern of mine and I heard it a lot tonight from the public and and read a lot about it and that is um setting precedents with a decision like this, right? And so some of the questions I have are um you know the precedents for converting other public um public spaces citywide. And so can you kind of clarify what some of those safeguards are that would prevent this decision from being used to justify other >> Yeah. >> changes. >> Yes, I can. Leah Picotti for the record and and Mikey can jump in on this too. But anytime we're looking at these cases, they're looked at on an individual basis. They're analyzed on an an individual basis. It depends on surrounding zoning context, history, what's happened. So, I don't want to necessarily say that by if this were to get approved that all of a sudden we're going to start approving hotels on every golf course in the area. Uh, which by the way, I think there's only two in the city of Reno, but um it wouldn't necessarily set precedents. We we analyze each case on a case- by case basis. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're good. Okay. Um, and then the other question I have, uh, is around some of the language that was in the SPD handbook that talked about the boundary potential modifications. Um you said 10% if it's over 10% it would have to come back but I'm just really trying to understand um if you can kind of explain you know how that language um is actually would would potentially prevent future public hearings or like what what is what is what does that actually mean and why is it there? >> Yes. So when we're talking about the boundary um th that's not that's not something that can be deviated from. So if we're talking about that 12.5 acre SPD, the location of it, the size of it, that this is zoning that we have a legal description that that follows this um and it's not going to deviate from that. So, if this does move on and end up getting approved, what's going to be approved and modified to SPD is the 12.5 acres that that you're looking at right now. The boundary itself cannot cannot be modified. Um, what can be modified are some of the quantifiable standards that are set forth not only in code but in the handbook as well. So, that would be quantifiable things. So that could be uh setbacks, stepbacks, um building height, um things along those kinds of lines, things that we would normally see as an application for some sort of deviation. So we have two different kinds. We have more than two different kinds, but essentially we have two different kinds of deviations. We have minor deviations that are less than 10% and we have major deviations that are 10% or more up to 50%. Major deviations require approval from the planning commission. Minor deviations for less than 10% can be approved administratively. That just carries on into this SPD handbook. >> Great. Thank you so much, Commissioner Bisera. Thank you. A couple more, Leah. Um gosh, a lot going on tonight, so I lost a few earlier. um that there was concern rightfully so about the residents or the general public losing kind of a process or input. Could you just clarify or confirm if under the SPD public input would be removed in favor of like administrative review or some other kind of a process or will there still be public input under the SPD handbook as presented right now? So [snorts] as we see it um we are reviewing what so there's two things that would be required under this and it would be a major site plan review for the grading because the cuts and fills exceed the standards and then you would have a site plan which m so the major site plan review would be heard by the planning commission and then you have a minor site plan review for residential adjacency. So what we've done here is we have said that they have provided us with enough documentation that we have included the review for the major site plan and the residential adjacency in this application. So instead of it being an administrative decision or an administrative or a decision of the planning commission, this actually gets a higher level of review and the city council planning commission and city council both get to review it as well. So, it's not that we're waving it, it's that we've elevated it to be included in the review for this. >> So, you're saying just I understand it, the the public can anticipate that they would no longer have a say because it's been scrutinized enough at this stage and future stages if it did move forward. >> So, Mr. Bera to clarify >> the request that would come back normally under a public process. The documents and the review like for example the grading was included with the SPD handbook. So it's >> it's what you see is what you get so to speak. Okay. >> They they they would not come back with the exact same plan >> and get that reapproved. It's been incorporated here. And as Leah said um a major site plan review would typically go to planning commission and would only go to council if it was appealed. um where a minor site plan review is an administrative decision um which could also be appealed, but in this case it's going to the planning commission and city council because it's bundled with the SPD handbook. >> Great. Thank you, Mike. And and a little followup, Leah, because it teased me up for this one. Um Mr. Derling during his presentation did refer to uh other SPDs that the city of Reno has kind of uh supported or approved recently. Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but uh I was curious what those are and how do they compare to this project? Are they apples to apples or are they different? And if and if they're not the same, why bring them up? >> Um, I I can't speak as to why Mr. Derling brought them up, but I can tell you from my experience. Okay. Um, specific plan districts are a great way to create um a single project that sort of or a project that functions as a single entity right? >> So, if that makes sense. So, like one of the other ones that we've done >> um I mean SPDs can be anything, right? like like we did the Notables SPD um just to allow them to add that commercial kitchen. We did the Heiser SPD which had a large amount of residential and commercial that was all sort of going to function together on this one property. And then here we have this one. I wouldn't say that any SPD necessarily sets a precedent for another SPD, but they're all sort of their own um their own project with their own standards that end up getting applied. and Andy can uh further on as to why he brought that up in his >> great. No, thank you. >> Yeah, Andy. Thanks, >> thanks Commissioner Bera. Again, Andy Derling for the record. So, you brought it up that um >> we're not starting from scratch, right? There is a methodology to SPDS. There is a way that we work with the city staff and and and the planning commission for their approvals. So, um, we based this in its formatting, um, on the Heiser SPD, as, uh, Leah mentioned, also used Mix Suburban as a base zoning district. Little different, right? Obviously, it dealt with, um, a different mix of uses. Um, but it also dealt with the grading um, side of things. So, that project also triggered major site plan review for cuts and fills. um that also that SPD incorporated the major site planner review level uh and set of you know level of specificity in a in an actual plan set that you would normally see in a major site plan review into the SPD in the same manner that we're doing it for this. So to Leah's point right and to to Mr.'s point we have incorporated that specificity of those future entitlements right now so that people can see what we are proposing. >> Great. Thanks Andy. Appreciate it. and Leah. >> Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I have a question about zoning. So, the one of the exhibits attached to the and I think this is best for staff. One of the exhibits highlighted the differences between MS zoning and the SPD that's before us tonight. Is there any way without further discretionary approval that you can go to MS zoning as a part of this application be it through time some uh administrative review anything of the sort? >> Um you're let me just clarify. So you're asking if at some point this could just default back to MS zoning and then everything that's allowed in MS zoning would then be allowed, right? >> That's correct. and for the reason of you know some of these findings pertain to a traffic study that you could have other things as a part of that. So is there any way that they can revert to MS zoning or would it def revert to open space? >> It it as I stated in my presentation it will revert back to PGOS if at the end of that 10 years or seven years the applicant doesn't extend that. There is no way that it would just default back to MS without doing this all over again with a full public hearing, public notice and everything else to reszone it to MS. >> Thank you. The next question I had was about lighting. And and with that exhibit, one of the things I um hoped I could, I guess, more easily digest was how lighting in O PGOS compares to what is before us. So, can you you touched on it a little bit in your presentation. Can you tell me what's allowed today per lighting and what would we be approving? >> Yes. So, um my computer died about an hour ago, so I can't actually pull up the code and they recommending my apologies. >> Maybe Mr. Rally can pull up the code, but basically um because PGOS allows those outdoor recreational type activities, ball courts, sports, things like that, it allows stadium lighting without restrictions. So the restrictions that we have in Reno Municipal Code that restrict the lighting for everywhere other than PGOS does not apply to PGOS. So we could have basically full-blown stadium lighting from, you know, 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. That's what would be allowed >> under the current zoning. Current zoning. >> Commissioner Jockman Leah actually had a slide that addressed this and we're we're pulling that up right now. >> Yes. Yes. Thank you guys. So I just pulled this out of there. Um there so this is that section that I'm talking about. So right now under PGOS the standards that I have put the X over there do not apply. So that means that lighting does not have to be shielded from adjacent residences. It is not subject to the lighting standards in 1306. um they they do not have to be screened from adjacent residential zoning. They um don't have to meet the setbacks for accessory structures and they are not restricted to those hours that it shows there um through the SPD. This is all restricted. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Visera. >> Thank you, Chair. Just to follow up on that, just clarity, cuz when we were reviewing the downtown entertainment district ordinance and all that jazz, there was concern that, [gasps] you know, um, signs can be behemoths, you know, of the sort and even for the smaller properties. And I think the response that we received uh after trying to ask if we can minimize, you know, the the size of those signs, the response was more or less, well, no one's ever going to do that, right? Like who's going to do that? Like only if it's a big casino and they'd have to go through a process and so forth. And now I'm hearing a similar response under PGOS that well under PGOS they could just put up stadium lights. But in the same vein that we heard under the downtown um entertainment district, you know, signage ordinance, it was no one's going to do that. So, it seems like we're cherrypicking here of what can be used and what cannot be used when it doesn't seem like someone would put stadium lights under PGOS. So, it's being used as if as a as a way to move this along. >> I and I agree that nobody's going to build a football field here and put up stadium lights. I would I would agree with that. I think where it would pertain, for example, in their plan, tennis courts, um, pickle ball courts, uh, if those were to be constructed in the PG, PGOS zoning, >> yeah, >> you could have light outdoor lighting >> on those courts, they could be used in the evening where they're restricted through the SPD. >> Okay. Okay. >> And I want to clarify, too, that we're we're not I I don't, you know, apples to oranges here. We're not cherry-picking. What I'm trying to show here is that we have heard the concerns of the residences and we have taken what is currently allowed in PGOS and made it more restrictive because we hear what people are saying. We hear them saying that they they want more restrictive standards on the hours. They want more restrictive standards on the lighting. They're concerned about the adjacency to the residential. So all I'm saying here, okay, >> I'm not saying that they're going to do this. I'm just saying we've restricted all of this of what they would be allowed to do within the SBA. >> And I do agree with you there and I think my initial opening remarks were to give credit where credit's due and I've been trying to be a good a good champ of that for both sides and I think you're doing great work too, Leah. >> Have a planning question. Um, this has made me think of primary versus accessory use. So at what point is it the hotel size? It becomes this 24-hour operation. It becomes the major destination of the project site. Would that be the hotel boutique hotel and its spa and its pool and its club m club amenities that the social users use become the primary use. The golf course becomes the accessory use in in practicality. Now and in that case does it change the entitlement or would it change the process? That's a good question. And and I I considered this too because when this first came to me, I said, "Well, wait a minute. Is this an accessory use?" Or the way I always kind of look at it is is number one, we don't have accessory hotel use in the in the code. So that's it's not really an option anyways. But the way I always look at accessory uses is that if the primary use went away, would the accessory use still exist? So in this particular case, let's say the hotel gets built in the spa and the golf resort just shuts down. Does the hotel continue to exist? And the answer is is yes. So I wouldn't necessarily say that it's an accessory use as much as it is a supportive use or an ancillary use um but not necessarily dependent on the golf course for success and vice versa. So say it was the primary driver of this project then would the process change or I guess not in SPD because it's kind of like campus planning. >> Exactly. >> Um okay. So only under traditional zoning then would that become an issue? >> Yes. And and like I said because we'd be looking at can one function without the other. And in this particular case I think they can function without each other. They're just supportive of each other. So in this particular case, because we're in the SPD, it doesn't really matter what's accessory and what's primary. >> I have more questions. >> Commissioner Delvr. >> Oh, no. My other questions are different. >> Great. um for you [clears throat] Leah. One one question somebody brought up uh that the public um the open spaces help sort of mitigate storm water, air quality, etc., etc. Um and water runoff, etc. And I'm just kind of curious and and maybe it actually might be for for the developers. Um is this going to be an issue? Was this considered? Um I mean it is sort of an area where water does run off in general. >> I think yes. Um absolutely it's definitely considered and we do require you know drainage plans and analysis and and obviously if this was created for storm water then it's going to have to continue to do so. But really it's a good question for the engineers >> with the applicant. Yep. >> Yes. Indie Dling uh for the record again. Um yeah, we actually included a hydrarology study as part of the SPD. So we we look at um those elements of the infrastructure, sewer um in and storm water to make sure it can be conveyed appropriately. So there's a a regional drainage manual that dictates how we have to do that. So we obviously have to comply part and parcel with that. >> Got it. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. And sorry Leah, this I have another question for you. Um, so you know, you talked about and we've talked a lot about this and the public's talked a lot about it, this shift from public space and the benefits that it brings to to folks. So, um, you know, we heard a lot of, you know, we had we had a lot of emails coming from people. We've had a lot of people here talking tonight, people um, saying that they are in opposition. And so I'm just kind of curious how like how you see it when so many people are saying that this doesn't benefit them. How how do you balance that? Like what is that how how do help me come to terms with that? because >> so Leah Picotti for the record um regarding the open space [sighs] it's always difficult to balance competing policies in the master plan right I mean we can we can open the master plan and we can pull some that support it and some that don't support it but when I'm looking at this particular space this driving range that for whatever season is no longer being used as a driving range that is located within the PGOS zone, but is not a public park and is privately owned and has been used commercially for the last 50 years, 50 years, maybe longer. Um, I I have to look at what that could be, what it should be, and and and if it's going to be anything other than this space that's doing nothing right now. Um, what what policies can we implement? What standards can we implement to asssure that when it is developed because it will be developed in some way. Um what can we incorporate in it to make sure that it's compatible with the surrounding with the surrounding open space with the surrounding residences and with the businesses that are just down the street. So, I have to sort of weigh all of these different competing interests, competing policies, and try to come up with the best thing that I can. And and that's what I do. And then I take that application and and we work together and we come up with something that staff can support and then I recommend approval and then you guys hear it and whatever decision you make tonight I will carry forward as your recommendation to the city council who will then in turn make a make an ultimate decision. So, I think when it comes to things things like this, um, we just look at at what it could be, what it is, what those policies are, and how we can best serve our our community. >> I have one final traffic question for the traffic engineer. There were a few public comments that came in that spoke to performing a cumulative traffic study. I would like to hear this on the record. The um can you speak to on on page nine of your report, you talk about what projects were included and you you call it your opening year, your your your background conditions. Did you include those projects? >> Again, Lauren Chilson, GCW for the record. Yes, we absolutely performed a cumulative analysis, one that includes the adjacent developments, uh the condo projects, the um for lack of a better 600 Plum Street was the official name uh for the project that was formerly the tennis courts that is absolutely included in the traffic study. Additionally, traffic growth um through the 2050 horizon. So, yes, we have performed a cumulative analysis. >> Thank you. I have a traffic question. Um, memory serves, there's no RTC service at this location correct? >> I believe that is correct. >> I remember that from the apartment Yes. >> complex that there was no RTC. Um, what are some things that can be done to reduce trip demand from the car? like what are things that we could do to lessen traffic or what is the threshold at which RTC says okay a stop is now warranted right here. >> Uh may I clarify your question? What >> at what threshold of like number of employees or residents where a stop would be necessitated? I I don't think the RTC is is going to reach that point for the reason that they have a planned project that addresses multimodal needs, capacity needs, safety needs. Those are all elements of that project. They have it programmed. It's u it's well clarified in the RTIP for the for the year that it um that it's programmed. Uh I I don't see anyone putting a stop in that the the policies are met, the projects mitigated, the work here has been has been done in my opinion. just so I'm understood that and again not a transportation person um but I find it interesting it's so associated with land use so there's no threshold or trigger that you see that these kinds of intensifications cumulatively the apartment building and this new hotel with numerous new employees would necessitate some sort of transit service >> oh I'm I apologize I misunderstood your question. I thought you meant some hard stop on development or >> Oh, no. I meant like a bus stop with a shelter. Okay. >> So, sorry. I totally missed your I totally misunderstood your question. Um, the RTC plans uh transit service based on effectively on demand. And in areas where they cannot justify a fixed route service, they offer usually um a ride service, a a dialup service. That's what they've been doing recently in outlying areas, those that do not have fixed route and would never really justify it. This area probably, again, in my opinion, I'm not I can't speak for the RTC, I'm not going to attempt to, but just my opinion, it probably doesn't warrant transit, fixed route transit service. Um, we can certainly collectively have a conversation with RTC about is is a dial ride uh type of service justified, possible, all of those things. Um, but I don't think at this point we're we're near a point we're going to get transit service or or stop immediately adjacent for the reason that we're talking about a hotel, right? We're talking about tourism. Um, those folks are not going to ride the bus from across town to get to the hotel. They're coming from out of town renting cars, so they have access all over the all over the community. >> But perhaps the employees plus the new apartment residents. >> Perhaps >> we're certainly open to exploring opportunities with RTC and having that conversation. I'm not in any way trying to shut that down. Just >> [clears throat] >> um let's continue the conversation. >> Commissioner Biser, for the record, just uh uh No, no, not for you, sir, but thank you. I think probably for Leah and I'll let you pass it on to someone else if you'd like to. Probably my last one or so uh and then I'll be happy to move on to deliberation when folks are. You know, the SPD requires a clear public benefit, right? And and I swear I'll get off this bandwagon here and I'm just trying to really understand it here. >> And I know uh uh Mr. Gordon and Mr. Ling have highlighted that it's a shift away to like maybe diversifying um the city's portfolio if you will or the community's portfolio like to uh be more um maybe tourism based. I think you mentioned that as well, you know, moved more towards tourism and helping with the tax revenue. Um, but really didn't dive into specifics on that. Like what does the tax revenue or the tourism model look look like as in in terms of ROI for the adjoining residents or that community and maybe the city as a whole? Maybe you don't have the numbers, but maybe just looking for an ROI here >> because we need something to bank on, right? >> More or less. Commissioner Biserov, Andy Derling, for the record. I don't I don't have specific numbers as far as um the fiscal impact that I think what you're kind of getting to. Um but I can speak to the fact that you know this property is is right now, you know, has a commercial use, but it it doesn't um the the proposal is going to generate a tremendous amount more of uh tax revenue. So when you look at it from you know a commercial uh land use um generates obviously a higher um assessment than residential or or in this case the golf course which is you know the open space. Um the um commercial by virtue of it being commercial it's held to a higher cap uh on how much it can increase over year year-over-year. So residential can only go up 3% per year. Commercial can go up 8% per year in their assessment. Um, so you higher tax base. Um, in addition to that, because we have a lodging use, you would also have room tax which goes into, you know, to support various elements of, you know, what RSCVA does and other things in our community. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Andy. >> Commissioner Gianiantini, uh, this is probably a question for Mr. Duncan or his representation if he feels comfortable. Without my glasses on, I can actually see all of you. So, go ahead. >> Hello, Mr. Duncan. >> Hello. >> So, um, there has been a significant amount of public outcry and mistrust of your development and your desire to continue to grow your business for your family and for the golf industry at large. My question to you is, what level of commitment do you have to the golf industry? What level of commit commitment do you have to the city of Reno with the golf industry? Where can we assure the neighbors that you continue to align with what you say you're going to align with and how can you put them at ease in terms of your efforts align with what you're saying? >> Sure. Um uh you know we we come from a family that has been in town for 45 years. Lakeidge isn't our only facility. Um, we've never had the luxury of ever buying a golf course that was a winner. We uh bought the golf course from the university. Um, the dates were a little uh iffy from the gentleman who came up and spoke earlier, but it was losing money and we turned it around and we made it a vibrant business. Um, we bought Toyabi, it was a losing proposition. We turned it around and made it a vibrant business. We bought Lorage out of bankruptcy. We turned it around and we made it a vibrant business. We own and operate six golf courses in Northern Nevada and a new one 80 miles east uh in Meadow Vista, California, which also was on the verge of bankruptcy and closing and we have turned it around and made it a vibrant business. We have done golf courses for 45 years and uh our plan is as a family and as community supporters is that the next generation does it for the next 45. These this proposed development just enhances the community at large in our opinion. Um, we have I have traveled to many different places that have boutique hotels and a lot of different amenities associated with their golf course and it makes the golf course go from a golf course to a destination to come here to enjoy Northern Nevada, to enjoy everything that we have. You can enjoy it outdoors, the skiing, the golf, but we have been committed in in Northern Nevada for 45 years and and we're committed for the next 45. I don't think I'll still be here. Um, that's a pretty good sled for 93, but uh you never know. >> I appreciate the answer. Thank you very much. >> Yep. >> Do we have any other questions from the commission before we move to deliberation? Hearing none, we are at 9:45. Shall we keep rolling? Any objections? Okay, let's keep moving. Deliberations, >> Commissioner Valto. Um, so I earlier I told you all kind of how I viewed 2021 and that the rationale for denying that And I guess what I want to start with, um, my major concern still is how do we keep this a golf course? And that informs how I view this project. Uh, the reason why I thought it was incompatible in 2021 is because I think the more you put residential encroaching on the golf course, the more likely it is you can go to the city and say, "We want more residential. We just put residential next to it." I think that by putting in a boutique golf resort at a golf course, it makes it very difficult for them to reszone the golf course in the future because if you're looking at what is compatible, we've just decided as a city to say there should be a boutique golf resort right here. If they were to come back with the other parcel that's not before us tonight and say now we want to make this condos and houses that is incompatible with the creation of a boutique golf resort. And I think that affects the developers abil or the applicant's ability to try to change the rest of the golf course in a way that actually creates a lot of protections for the golf course and makes it more viable in the future. Um, so I I say that to to kind of explain why I think I can come around from where I was in 2021 because a lot of the concerns I have been are addressed by an SPD handbook that says this will be a golf boutique golf resort. That makes me feel much more comfortable going forward that this will stay a golf course, which I think is very important for for the neighbors and I think very important for the community. Um, as far as the specific findings, uh, the ones that I think are kind of most in contention are consistency with the master plan, compatibility of the surrounding area, and public benefit, which we've we've talked a lot about. As far as the consistency with the master plan, I wanted to start the questioning by looking at the master plan itself. And I think that given where this is located and its proximity to um a regional center, you know, the goal is infill and redevelopment and given that it's on a major arterial. Uh I think this is a thoughtful approach to something that transitions between what is already SMU and if we look at the map we see just to the east SMU zoning and this is kind of a gradual transition that is tied into the purpose of the PGOS designation or the purpose at least is how it's being used as far as compatibility with the surrounding areas. Um this is a pure zoning question for me looking at what's next to it. It abuts SMU. this is SMU light because there's modifications and limitations on it which I do think it makes it compatible. The public benefit question I think is really interesting and I think we're focused a lot on the public benefit discussion about the public benefit to those immediately surrounding the area. Um the public benefit does not have to be just for those surrounding. It's a general public benefit to the community. People who live in the area who want to have their family stay there aren't going to have their family stay at the Peppermill anymore. they can stay at a resort by their house. Um, there's a public benefit to just having a lifestyle amenity and for the people surrounding it, a new restaurant, new things to do that are just more walkable and kind of create more of a community f feel. And I think there's a general benefit to complying with the master plan goal of infill densification. So, those are the ones I'm I do feel comfortable on. the traffic portion. I think there was a a proposal here that is interesting and helps mitigate this and I'm not going to try to play traffic engineer, but I think David, you did a good job analyzing some of these issues or Commissioner Jock, Chair Jockman, my apologies. Um, but so that's kind of where I'm at with with some of the bigger picture issues. Um, but I'm interested in hearing how how you all feel about this. Uh would you like to speak Commissioner Roier? >> Sure. >> Proceed. >> Okay. This this is a really tough project. I mean this is a hard one that I think we've all spent weeks thinking about. We've been receiving copious public comment letters. Um I agree that an SPD is sort of the right zoning tool for a resort complex. It's it's unlike other sort of traditional zone asks. Um and I I want to take it in a different direction. So think about inclusivity exclusivity. Golf courses are by nature by their use exclusive. Golf is an expensive sport. Not everyone has access to it. Uh Lacage is semi-private meaning it has a membership component. I think economic diversification and this this what could be an amazing project with the right design standards and mitigations could pull in a wider consumer base. Now it's not a public amenity but there are a lot of people for which golf does not they have no connection to the sport and therefore that place has been historically off limits to them for 50 years. So I think in some ways too a thirsty green grass is not necessarily a landscape native open space to the great basin. So we have to sort of reimagine how Reno has changed over 50 years and plan for the generations who play less golf and still want to engage with this location which is adjacent to McCarron and now sits at the center of our city which it once did not. it was in the county and at the south end of town. So there are significant changes regionally that have to be considered and at the heart of this is residential adjacency and this board is confronted with residential adjacency often and I want to be very clear that the the audience the turnout that we've had here tonight is extremely privileged compared to a lot of the cases that we see with residential adjacency. We have heard so many massive industrial distribution warehouses, data centers, 24-hour operations that are noisy and bright, sitting right next to houses that are in a far different income bracket in the north valleys and have had to and made the case to approve those. So, I can't sit here tonight and give this a a a blind denial just based on what we've done elsewhere and say that this is different than the kinds of residential adjacency cases we've seen elsewhere. In fact, this one is much more mitigated. It has the potential to be a good neighbor. I really hope in the time from planning commission to city council, some of those things have been worked out. And the only finding I have a hard time making truthfully is the traffic. And I see that there's an opportunity here for walkability. I see that this enough generation that maybe a bus service could fixed route service could be warranted in a place that has been completely excluded and ignored by RTC. So I know that this is not what the neighbors want to hear. And I am a resident of this neighborhood. I I live close to this and I feel strongly that it's going to be an unpopular vote um as your neighbor, but I can make I can make the findings and support this. >> Commissioner Jockman, so I will speak about traffic here. Um normally I try to keep my comments brief. The um situation in this neighborhood is a little bit unique and different than many other parts of town. There have been a number of development applications that have come through this area that have not had traffic mitigations. I am fairly new to this commission. I'll speak first to the zoning perspective that I see as it pertains to transportation planning. What we have is a request to effectively upzone open space along a principal arterial. If you look when you think of roads along a principal arterial in an urban area, you should have commercial, retail, other forms of higher uses along those principal arterials. We don't always have that in Reno and that's sort of at the core of what the problem is in this part of town. What we have is a principal arterial McCarron. There was a fatality at Plumis and Lakeside 2 months ago with a wheelchair. Some of you may know who that was. I do not. However, when you're looking at this, my first perspective of this is that we have three four miles of principal arterial that have residential all along it in an urban area. That doesn't make a lot of sense. And so this is right at the crux of an infill project where effectively you see this applicant seeking to move the intensity of zoning to the west along McCarron. So I would encourage city council and this is where I'm going a little bit beyond the application, but I would encourage city council to have a greater discussion. They had one yesterday about McCarron Boulevard and traffic safety specifically. Not every person was there. However, that discussion is on the backdrop of the fact that a principal arterial isn't exactly in line with residential zoning for many miles. This causes the problem that we have. And so there are regional trips going through your neighborhood every day from Verdi in the morning over to places like Meadowwood Mall. It's a principal arterial. They have every right to do so, but it doesn't make sense to put that in lay terms. They should be using the spaghetti bowl for a regional trip of that length. They should be accessing a higher functional class. So, I get that that's a little bit nerdy. However, the lay way to put that is they should use the spaghetti bowl and they do not. We do not have the right to stop them from doing that. However, what we could do is a number of things. When I see the comments here from the community, you're speaking technically that we would like to have a lower functional class. You don't actually want more capacity. You want to see something lower, calmer that would be more indicative of your neighborhood. And this is where it gets at the crux of who owns the road. McCarron is owned by the Nevada Department of Transportation. We have limited jurisdiction over that road. Now, our findings require us to make specific level of service findings pertaining to the RTC and the city of Reno. We do not make a take a look at NDOT findings. However, for this purpose, they're effectively the same. RTC will make us find E on this road. In the morning, you have per the traffic study over a thousand vehicles going eastbound. You have substantial cues on that approach. You have it on Plumis as well and you do you can say that you have a traffic problem. The traffic study is documenting level of service F that is in conflict with the finding. So you have a mitigation with this application which I believe is the first time that you are seeing a mitigation with a development project in your neighborhood and that is not something that you are accustomed to. A phase overlap is a bit of a unique thing and the applicant has documented that the level of service specifically the seconds of delay there are decreasing overall with this mitigation. The condition that they're proposing conditions them with either having the RTC project go first that in the study is documented as level of service D which allows me to make that finding or they're mitigating the traffic associated with their project. I can be sympathetic to the fact that they did not get the approval that they wanted from NDOT. We do not have authority over NDOT for their roads. So this [snorts] you know, I can understand that the applicant is in a bit of a pickle here. They are only able to access the road on Golf Club Drive. We do not have or certainly I don't have the interest in restricting to a right in right out at that location because other people live on that property. That access point, albeit private, is effectively treated as a public road by all the folks who live in that community. The [clears throat] I've been talking for a while here. So, the final thing I will say is that the city council in addition to this application, they need to take a look at what they want to do with this road. And maybe it means a transfer of jurisdiction. I'm not quite sure what they would like to do with it, but they need to take a holistic look at the road. As long as it's a principal arterial, it's going to be used as such. And as long as we encourage speeds and we focus on capacity cuz on the backdrop of this we have an RTC project saying we're going to do more capacity. Well, our findings are in line with capacity which is often in conflict with pedestrian and bicycle safety. So I'll try to wrap this up. I I like traffic, so I apologize. But the um there is a higher level regional issue that if it were addressed, I should say city issue, if it were addressed, we would not have these challenges in your neighborhood. And so I want city council to also take a look at that. I'll leave it at that. Thank you, [snorts] Commissioner Bisera, for the record. Uh thank you. I'll just kind of uh follow that sentiment a little bit, keep my remarks a little shorter. Um, first I want to start off by thanking the residents and the applicant uh for their diligence on on this. Um, and highlight that we are at this phase for this project a recommending body. Oftent times we get projects that just kind of uh come through us and they could kind of stop here more or less, right, and go out to build and go vertical uh if we do our part. But in this case, regardless of how we vote or what the recommendation is, it's going to move on to our council. Um, so I do want to just thank everyone for their work. I don't I don't yet see the clear public benefit value. I see aspirations and I and I think they're awesome. I do think that we need to diversify our economy or our portfolio and not bank on one or two things as we have historically. And I can say that because I grew up here my entire life. Um, and so I I do think that or I would strongly implore that if if the SPD and the public benefit is to diversify the economy, then as Jerry Maguire said, show us the money. Like, show us exactly what what we're getting, right? Show us numbers. Um, and I know it's probably early to do that, but that would be a good next phase uh at council. And I'll highlight that at regional planning commission just this last Monday, we passed a motion to support our TMRPA staff to actually have a a kind of regional alignment collaboration task force. And I hope that maybe council can work with them in helping maybe address some of these uh not just Reno issues, but regional issues with traffic. And I do um agree with some of you folks in that uh this traffic is painful both not just from a vehicle side but from a multimotal transportation lens and uh I would want to know like what triggers uh a need for a RTC bus for instance cuz I know bus 56 goes through South Meadows. Why would it not go down to uh Colin Ranch and the like? Um, so you know, I guess with that I would say keep doing the work, both residents and the applicant. And I'm confident that at some point along the way something fruitful can come from it. Right now I'm having a hard time with the public benefit uh under an SPD as it's being presented to us. But maybe someone can sway me. And I also do want to say that I think Commissioner Belto, you mentioned at the beginning that you were concerned about the precedent. I think you know about the the in 2021 it was I think your your language that there was a concern for precedent that if if the commission at that time approved that request then maybe it would be a precedent for more uh residential applications to come before this body and there be a kind of precedent for those to kind of be supported. And I think the same can be applied here if we're not careful that well maybe the golf course is protected but what about a precedent for setting more SMU and maybe that's the policy and direction of the city. Who knows right going westward but I'm not sure and that wasn't really touched on tonight. Uh but that would be something that you know would give me pause. Yeah. Uh Commissioner Williams for the record. Um I have a little bit of knowledge in the golf course industry as I uh oversee or get to see some internals of one in the north. Um I would say on a very basic level uh you can attribute public benefit to the success and long-term success of this golf course. Um because it inherently uh has a large portion um in in in in people's property values. And so when I think about the success of a golf course, um I think about how we can continue it success, um I think this model that Mr. Duncan is proposing tonight is one that you will see is being adopted um around the country. Um especially in those areas that are seasonal golf. Um and so I'm generally supportive of the project. I understand the vision. Um, I'm happy of the concessions that were made tonight. Um, I'm happy that uh they agreed to um reduce the time frame, which should eliminate some concern. Um, and I'm I'm pretty confident in the way that the SPD was wrote that it will inevitably give the outcome that they are proposing tonight. So, those are my comments. >> Thank you. Um yeah, this, you know, this is uh this is an interesting one. Um obviously we want our business owners here to be successful. Um obviously not at the cost of our our residents necessarily. Um and I've kind of gone back and forth. I still have some concerns with the traffic. Um you know, I'm just not kind of nobody knows what's really going to happen. Um, but I am I am very concerned about the traffic and the basically that that RTC hasn't really even approved or been able to fund the um expansion and widening of of McCarron. So, that's a big concern of mine. Um, other concerns I have, and again to uh, Commissioner Williams point, I appreciate you guys focusing on uh, doing seven-year implementation because I think I think at the crux of this is obviously people they want to save, like I said, they want to save the golf course. Um, and and I think that there are still some concerns about that. Um but but that doesn't necessarily have to do with with this piece of property uh per se. So again, I think that and I I don't know how to help. Um I mean, I think it's just kind of one of those things where you you build it and then they see that this is this is it's going to be okay that you're not getting rid of the golf course. Um the other concern that I still have is the um oh there's a lot uh um you know it really is that that benefit that we we keep talking about. Um and again I I want to say I appreciate everything that that Duncan has done. I've seen the concessions. I saw where this started, you know, with, you know, trying to incorporate the 155 acres and and now down to the specific area things that you've uh focused on in terms of um you guys you guys have done a lot and I appreciate that and I feel like you have heard you've heard the the public speaking. Um I I I actually like the idea of a boutique style hotel in Reno. I'm not necessarily saying this is the right place for it or I'm not saying it is or isn't. Um, but I think that uh these types of projects and businesses are important for Reno to help us grow and to bring in um the kinds of business that that we're looking for and that we need to in order to grow and make this a viable, sustainable um area for people to come to, want to visit and want to build businesses here. So um so I'm I'm a little undecided at the moment. I'm still concerned about traffic. Um, but uh kind of where I am at the moment. >> Commissioner >> Confanti. Um, there is much deliberation about protection of this particular golf course. the application and restated by the applicant's representative is stating that they are making the uh the boutique hotel either primary or secondary. But the reality is is that these two entities function together and in order to protect this golf course long term, we need to move forward with looking at the opportunity to make this boutique hotel a viable option for the city. I think we are all in agreement that it's a wonderful use of the space. Um um the land is no no longer historically no longer suitable for its historic use based on the driving range no longer being in use. So we have to kind of move forward regionally. We're looking at significant um projects the the arena and this certainly does not kind of match the arena's scope but we continue to evolve as a region and I continue to like to see families like Duncan's reinvest in Reno and I would love this commission to recommend that we support families like this and so that we can keep Nevada business in Nevada and continue to have um evolution in that space. So, I support this project. >> I have a I have a couple of sort of procedural questions, especially because this is a recommendation to city council. So, uh I'm not sure how how we're how we're going to vote or how this is presented, but when we do things, are we would we say like we recommend that city council consider adding or making it seven years instead of 10 year? what sort of what's the process here? >> Yes. So, if if there is a motion um for example, if there is a motion to approve, it would be staff's recommendation that you include um the various items that were agreed to tonight. Um for example, the the traffic signal, the the traffic modification, uh the sustainability requirements, the modification to timing, and then Mr. Derling presented an additional uh condition, I believe, to reduce parking on the east side. um we would recommend that you include those to be incorporated into the SPD handbook. So they're not necessarily they're not conditions, they'll be incorporated as standards into the handbook. >> Uh Commissioner Valto, >> um I happen to be writing them all down. So >> if anybody ever get to that point, >> great. It's I'll say one thing. It sounds like Commissioner Delvr you had a a few thoughts about traffic there. One thing that I noted in the uh applicant suggested condition of approval was that and and Cali, would you be able to put that back up? [clears throat] You had you had mentioned that you had concerns about RTC funding. I don't even want to tell you about NDOT. So that >> that's a general concern, but [laughter] >> yeah. Well, don't look at NDOT. though. Um, can we get the So, so what I'm focusing on there with the, um, they have the they state if the McCarron Boulevard widening project will not be completed. So, I don't think we have to focus on the funding. The way the >> okay >> conditions written is that if it occurs, we have the capacity improvement, the study's documenting the level of service uh, standard being met at that point in the future. So that's not as a result of their project. They would just be paying impact fees which they will be uh regardless in this case. The um other thing that they could have to do which allows them to control their own destiny and I want to be very delicate about this because there is a regional traffic problem in this neighborhood and it's pumping through on a principal arterial. Everyone in this room agrees that that is going to exist with or without this project or any potential next one unless city council takes up that discussion about what to do with the road and possibly considering a transfer of jurisdiction as the very first point to start that that there is precedent for this in southern Nevada with urban principal arterials. um we don't have much of a say in what we can do in that road until we own it. And so that's on my mind. Understanding there's a regional traffic problem, you still have to mitigate your traffic impact. This is a literal finding that I am tasked with making. So I when we're operating within level of service F, I'm unwilling to see that delay increase as a result of a development project. the applicant showed on the slide that the level of service will decrease. That allows me to identify that the traffic impacts associated with this application before us here tonight have been mitigated. So, will traffic continue to be a concern? Yes. However, we cannot task an applicant with mitigating a regional traffic impact. we can task them with mitigating their impact. A phase overlap in my eyes is helping with this specific project particularly because a lot of these will be trips that are not going to other homes. So in to put that in lay terms, this is a hotel. They may be coming from the airport or back to the freeway, that higher functional class. They will be using that movement. So a phase overlap adds capacity directly associated with their project. >> Can I can I ask another question of the applicant? Thank you. Uh Andy. Um so one thing and and apologies this has been going on for a while and we've had a lot of different conversations and things have come up. Um, at one point I think we talked about uh like when folks from hotels check in and check out, right? And so I'm wondering if that was taken into consideration with the traffic. >> Yeah, I may defer to Lauren. He's probably a better answer to this, but just an you know, I can speak more anecdotally and he can give you the more of the facts, but um yes, a hotel use peaks very differently than a residential, right? Residential, you're heading to work between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. you're coming home between 4:00 and [clears throat] 6:00 in the evening. >> Hotels never let me check in early, >> right? Hotel is right, it's, you know, 3 4:00 check-in. So, you're arriving uh, you know, midday or later in the evening, maybe. Um, and then in the morning, it's really different, right? Because in the morning, a hotel user isn't going or a hotel guest isn't going to work, right? Um, so they're not making that morning commute trip. So, their peaks are different. Um and that's what's you know kind of reflective in why the impact isn't that big. Uh and to Commissioner Jockman's point with um you know the condition that's on the screen we are able to adequately mitigate our incremental impact as part of this overall project. >> Okay. And and then maybe if you wouldn't mind because I'm not David a traffic what did you call yourself? Nerd. Um [laughter] I I I just don't understand what this actually means and how this actually mitigates traffic. >> Yeah. Again, Lauren Chilson. So I want to tag on to to Andy's comment just super quickly. [clears throat] Our responsibility is to is to assess the worst conditions throughout the day. In this case, that's the commute hour. And so we we study the amount of traffic that happens during the commute hour. So we make sure we get the peak of the peak. So that's what's been evaluated. To answer your question, what happens is this this additional right turn green arrow which goes at the same time as the left. That's why we call it an overlap increases the ability decreases the delay on the right turn movement. >> Sure. Commissioner Biser for the record. Just a couple thoughts. Um gosh, uh I do want to just kind of highlight again that things do change, you know. Um a few of us shared that uh there's things we want to protect and steward and and I can appreciate that. I think we all do. Uh there was this sentiment as well that um you know we're we're applying something here or paying maybe more attention then sometimes we pay attention to other areas in our community with less wealth and power and and you know I would ask this commission to kind of keep that in mind as we evaluate all these different uh large scale projects or SPDS and the sort um in the future to do that kind of more e equitably uh regardless of who can afford to be here or not representing themselves. Um I think that really the missed opportunity here is that uh there isn't a level of specificity expected of of applicants and not to their fault in this case. I actually think they knocked it out of the park almost like the Dodgers recently did. Um, but like I think that if city council can direct or work with planning staff more to up their game in regards to the level of specificity that they're working with with applicants like uh like for an SPD. Uh they should expect to know what the policy direction or shift is as of recent so we're all on the same page. I truly think that if they knew that, I would be fully on board tonight because that information would be provided because I have full faith and this is and you all know that Mr. Derling and I and several others haven't seen eye to eye on some of their projects, but they've been really good on this one and I do want to give them credit. So, for city council listening or later on, please take that in mind that uh they do have my vote of confidence in that and that that that will show up. At the same time though, that that level of detail that that value that we expect in an SPD is just not there yet. So, I'm just at the two yard line, but I believe that they can get there if if uh city council can expect more and maybe do do their part as well, which I know they will, and I respect them all. >> So, just kind of wanted to say that. >> Chair, I'm I'm ready to make a motion. I'll I'll say I'll say one final thing. So, um I Commissioner Jockman, a lot of my comments have been to the community about this one. Again, this is the first development application where you're seeing a condition tied to traffic mitigation in this neighborhood. Um this this last comment is is sort of to the applicant. My basis of support for the upzoning portion of this is largely focused on the fact that it's a principal arterial and the zoning exercise you seek to employ is along a principal arterial where that should be done. That basis of support does not carry that far beyond a principal arterial and and and to put that in lay terms you know we're looking at 155 acres but we're looking at 12 of it. I can see the findings there. I struggle with what remains for the golf course from a zoning perspective. So, I'll leave it at that. Commissioner Velto. >> Yeah, I'm asking that it be put up so everyone can see it because it's quite lengthy and it's not the same as that. I >> I just emailed you the motion if you could put that up. >> I just want to make sure y'all have input in this because it's a lot of words. >> Give me just a second. Commissioner Balto, >> but we're not amending the master plan amendment. We're just adding that language to this SPD because what we're going to do, two votes, right? >> I I thought it was one vote, but all of the changes are going to be about the we have we have red lines to the handbook. We have at least one additional condition of approval. Staff, would you like to weigh in on this and and provide any recommendations for how we make a recommendation? >> It'll be put up. Maybe we can see it and then you can and the the new stuff is the numbered stuff. So let's take 30 seconds a minute to read through that. So, so we now formally have this in front of us. Do we have any further >> Mike, my question is, um, there the one that relates to removal of the parking spaces. I don't know if that's exactly what Commissioner Romire wanted. So, >> um, my request is to not have any over parking. So, I'm not sure if it was 30 or 36 spaces. So I would suggest to modify that first item such that it is to not exceed. We should not specify removal of 30 parking spaces on a conceptual site plan for an SPD. We should state that it shall not exceed >> minimum code. It shall not minimum code requirements. However, I do want to specify that because you're looking at a site plan that is tied to the handbook that it's specifically those parking spaces that abut the residential on the east side. >> Yeah. Can I can I ask you a clarifying question? So, if it says modify handbook to not exceed minimum code requirements specifically excluding parking spaces that abut the next >> eastern boundary or the eastern retaining walls. What about uh west of existing golf club drive? Is that what you're referring to? Um >> at the bottom of the benched retaining walls under the town homes is the area they showed removing the parking and that would be a place where additional landscape screening would be helpful. >> The ones up against the town. >> Would it be easier if we said to remove >> the the excess parking spaces that are closest to residential uses to the east shall be the ones to be removed? >> Sounds better. Okay. that are closest to resident residential >> residential uses to the east. Those should be the ones to be removed. >> Okay. >> And and and and meet minimum parking requirements. >> Yep. Got that. >> Okay. With that, >> I can I can I add just thoughts on that with maybe for the record and for city council just to to know um because they're probably not going to know why seven years, right? And maybe just so people are there um when they're thinking about this, do you remember why it was seven years, Leah? >> I I I think that we said seven years because that provides some time for us to figure out if RTC is going to do the widening. >> I don't think that also reduces that time frame, >> right? Maybe from Right. Maybe from that lens, but I think I think and Commissioner Williams, this was your recommendation. I think the idea was I don't know, just seven years. I I I thought the response from Mr. Derling was uh essentially that gives them enough time and comfort to coordinate financing, get through permitting, and do a lot of the things that it takes to get this operational. And anything less than seven years would make it difficult for them to accomplish things that are less predictably on a timeline. Um so that's why they thought seven years was palatable. That was my recollection from the dialogue between Mr. Derling and >> I think palatable, but the starting point was just off the cuff. Correct, Commissioner Williams. >> Yeah, I'm more speaking to what Mr. My recollection, Mr. During statement. >> Yes. >> So, I just want to make sure that they have some guidance as to like why we're recommending seven. >> Yeah. Andy Derling for the record. Yes. To to confirm uh Commissioner Velto's comments there. And I would add and to demonstrate the applicant's commitment to completing the project. >> Okay. Thanks, guys. >> Uh and with with that, I'm ready to make a motion. >> Do we have the final verbiage associated with the parking spaces? I do in my dock. >> Can we put that up there so that Commissioner Roormire can see that? >> Yep. >> And yeah, Commissioner Visera, I appreciate your >> uh thoughts on justifying the seven years. I appreciate that. >> Yep. I'm Kelly. Sorry, I'm sending a revise number one. It's a little small, but Commissioner Roire, can you confirm that is your intent? >> Okay. And exclude excluded will not be in past tense when I read it. That's the only change. Okay. Um, chair, will you can I make a motion? >> Please proceed with a motion. >> Uh, in the matter of case number LDC25-000061, based upon compliance of the applicable findings, I move to adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend that city council approve the master plan and zoning map amendments subject subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and a conformance review by the regional planning commission with the additional changes to the specific plan district handbook. First, as it relates to parking, modify the handbook to not exceed minimum code requirements. Uh, specifically exclude the excess parking spaces that are closest to the residential uses to the east. Second, as it relates to traffic prior to certificate of occupancy for the hotel, the project shall construct a minor traffic signal modification adding a northbound right turn overlap phase at the McCarron Boulevard Plum Street intersection subject to the city of Reno and NDOT approval. If the McCarron Boulevard widening project will not be completed before the hotel's certificate of occupancy is issued. Third, as it relates to sustainability, additional language will be included in the SPD handbook as identified in the presentation slide from Mr. Derling. Fourth, as it relates to time of completion date of construction, the timeline of completion will be modified from a maximum of 10 years to substantial completion in seven years. And the applicant must provide written updates to staff on the status of completion to the city of Reno uh as directed by the city of Reno. >> We have a motion. >> Commissioner Gantini, I second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I >> I >> any opposed? >> Nay. Uh for 1B, the clear public benefit to offset the master plan goals and priorities has not been made. We have a recommendation uh a technical recommendation of approval that is 61. That concludes this agenda item. follow us. >> Item, we will now move to item B, staff announcements. >> Just Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple quick announcements. I know we've had a long night. Um, at the last city council meeting, the council upheld your recommendations for approval for the South Valley's Park zone change as well as the High Sierra gas conditional use permit, which was, as you recall, for hazardous materials, which requires council approval. um at their next meeting. So the first meeting in December, they will consider the child care text amendment that was presented to you last month that you this body also recommended approval on that will be at their next meeting. That's all I have for this evening. Uh and uh D business items does was that covered under there as well. Okay. So um E Trucky Meadows regional planning liaison report. Uh, Commissioner Biserero, would you like to give this uh recap of the items on uh >> I'm calling you on the spot. I apologize. So, >> no, no, it's okay. It's okay. Um, I'd be happy to. Okay. >> So, we uh uh the the Stonegate project came before us uh again, which I think might have been a surprise to folks, but it was really for conformance review after it went through the process uh of that it went through for for several months and it passed. um uh with uh the necessary supermajority that it needed to advance. So So that's moving forward. Um as I mentioned earlier, the TMRPA was tasked or supported uh with their task force to essentially collaborate uh regionally with municipalities and so forth on regional issues. So that's good. It's going to be a kind of a task force led by Dr. Jeremy Smith and his staff. And I'm sure uh point of context for each m municipality and um I think those were the big the big items unless uh others want to cover it. >> I think that is sufficient. Thank you very much. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Item F, future agenda items for discussion only. >> Do we have anything from the commission? I would just like to state that as we did last meeting, we do have upcoming presentations and trainings that have been brought up in the past. Those will be coming forward. Hearing nothing else, item G, public comment. Madame clerk, do we have any request to speak under this item? >> I do not have any request to speak forms. We do have two attendees in Zoom. Um, if you're in Zoom and you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. With that, we have no closing public comment. >> Item H, adjournment. Can I get a motion tojourn? >> So moved. Commissioner Ber, >> I second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Meeting adjourned.