commissioner Munos can you hear us okay Sylvia can you hear us okay thank you testing make sure you can hear me all right thank you everybody for attending the regular meeting of the Reno City Planning Commission today is Wednesday December 20th and we are at the city of Sparks legislative building we will kick it off with the Pledge of Allegiance commissioner VTO please flag the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation God indivisible liy and jusice for all all right thank you Michelle can we get a roll call please Harris Armstrong here Manny bisera here Arthur Munoz Carrie rer here Alex fto here Sylvia villan NOA here okay and JD draulic here we have a quum thank you closing item number two moving to item number three public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment oh sorry okay due to technical difficulties we are unable to accommodate Zoom for for this meeting the meeting can be viewed on the City of Reno website at reno.gov meetings public comment may be submitted to Reno Planning Commission reno.gov 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 manner not agendized for possible action on today agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes if you are in a oh never mind we're not doing Zoom so um lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disrupted behavior and you will be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues with that we did not receive any public comment for this item no correspondence and no voicemails and we don't have zoom so okay thank you anybody in the chambers wish to speak on General Public comment seeing none we will close item number three move on to public hearings any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard will need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary alternatively you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of this meeting we'll start it off with item 4.1 which is case number LD C 24-22 Legacy Village Homes Town Homes map extension excuse me Mr chair commissioner Muno can I uh can I jump in real quick please go ahead um I'm on the uh City of Reno website I pulled up the meeting and it's giving me nothing but a picture of the City of Reno then a live countdown for 12 minutes uh is that going to be let me send you the zoom link so just one moment hang on this is commissioner Bill same thing I'm getting the same thing yeah I'll get that for you just one second for our commissioner M if I can um if we're not able to rectify this if they could send over the uh the proposal or the presentation so that we can follow through by email that work for me I'm going to email you the link just one moment okay e okay we're sending these links to your City of Reno email account thank are either of you able to see it now I can yes sopia yes okay great good to go all right looks like we will take a presentation from staff applicant uh representing the applicant for the record Ryan Sims a on engineering on behalf of the applicant uh Paradiso communities um I'll just make this short and sweet a little overview um the application is for a two-year time extension um on a tenative map uh per NRS 278 360 um the original tenative map was approved in November of 2020 rerecorded the first map uh in February of 2022 um which then set the time frame for the recordation of the next final map at February 2024 um due to you know last winter and you know the well-known slowdown in in housing and you know increasing construction cost and several factors the uh project hasn't uh proceeded as quickly as was expected um so we're here to request a two-year time extension on the second final map um I included the city Areno vicinity map here to show where the project is uh between military and lemon Drive uh just north of the intersection of those two roads um as you can see in the second display this shows how the site sits now uh you can see the the phase one site improvements are all complete um the roads are paved um there's actually 17 slabs on the ground now as of now for uh home construction so they're getting a start just not as soon as they would have liked um so with that being said the the final map um you know final design and final mapping for the second phase hasn't commenced so we won't make the deadline of February of uh 2024 so we're here to request you know per NRS the two-year time extension on the T map um I would add that uh staff has reviewed all the conditions of approval of the tenative map prior to the recordation of the first map and all were found to have been met so um with that um I also have with me uh John Foley uh manager of Paradiso communities if there's any questions with that I'll in my presentation thank you looks like we will get a presentation from City staff and maybe get the mic a little closer just make sure the other Commissioners can hear you hold so good evening Commissioners uh Daniel morma associate planner specialist for the record um as referenced earlier uh before you as an application request for a Time extension for the previously approved tenative map for Legacy Village Town Homes um uh the applicant uh mentioned the uh location the the site is roughly 9 and a half acres and generally located on the west side of Lemon Drive um the originally approved tentative map included 264 town home dwelling units and the first final map TM 5472 was recorded uh as previously mentioned on February 8th of 2022 um for 168 residential units and so uh the subsequent uh final map would be for the remaining 96 uh residential units and uh as previously mentioned uh there is a 2-year timeline from the the time that the first final map was recorded um however Nevada revised statutes empowers the Planning Commission to Grant an extension of not more than two years for the presentation of any final map after that two-year period has lapsed and so that's why we're here today um and before you is our recommended motion uh staff is in support of the applicant's request and we offered this recommended motion and of course I'm here to answer any questions that you may have thank you Daniel appreciate it all right we'll now move to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Munoz please start commissioner commissioner Villa commissioner VTO commissioner VTO no disclosures uh no disclosures commissioner roor please commissioner RoR no disclosures commissioner Basera familiar with the site commissioner Armstrong no disclosures commissioner draulic familiar with the site all right we will now open it up to public comment I have no request to speak forms Michelle anything anything on your end no request to speak forms no voicemails and um no correspondence received okay anybody in the chambers wish to speak on uh on this item seeing none we will close public comment open it up to the Commissioners for questions of the staff for applican commissioner VTO please good evening uh C can you talk me through kind of how staff evaluates requests for extensions what what do you look at you're evaluating that okay so um first uh as mentioned this was a previously approved tentative map and so um I would say uh subject to those original conditions um staff was in favor of that uh of uh this motion I I don't know if there was uh much more Nuance beyond that uh this is uh uh a a codified uh allowance that uh uh that the Planning Commission has uh from V revised statutes to to grant that extension in in cases like this uh the applicant mentioned uh economic uh and housing market constraints and so um uh staff was in favor of of this motion and if if I could just add to that commissioner belto as as Daniel mentioned this is a codified process there are no set findings for a Time extension so we look to to make sure that the map that was recorded was in compliance with the conditions and that sort of thing and essentially that the rules were followed along the way so that's kind of how we come to our conclusion on these sure and I wasn't sure if there's a an opinion on what you need to show whether it's diligence or some sort of condition or something happening that warrants the extension or if that's how you look at it um but do you have an opinion as to whether there's a certain circumstance that justifies the extension technically there's nothing in our code that would require that um so we look more of is is is it in conformance with the conditions that were set in place when it was approved thank you commissioner Muno or villain NOA any questions no questions no questions all right commissioner Armstrong um just related to the extension can you remind me is this the only extension they would get or is there like what's the cap on the amount of extensions like how long could they reasonably extend it oh so uh two years is the max okay so if at the end of two years it doesn't materialize in it you go back to square one uh that's correct okay thank you I just wanted a reminder on that appreciate it commissioner Bera please good evening um maybe for the applicant or staff um just curious what the confidence level is for um this project moving forward if it is extended um is there an anticipation that conditions will change they have changed I I'll let the applicant address that John push it it's good okay you guys can hear me yes sir okay anticip of the market yes is positive um you know we fought the winter and then the market conditions uh so we decided to pause and we're back uh back at progress there we've finished the improvements we've started the first 17 homes we're going to get ready to start the uh seven models for the model complex here in the next 90 days so we do see positive movement towards you know continuing the project at this point um again phase one is 168 units it's a lot of homes to plow through it with the marke conditions the way they are but we we have 100% confidence that we will get the tenative map in time uh for the two-year extension to get going on phase two our hope is that we would need it sooner than the two-e extension so that's that's where we're at thank you Mr pulley thank you not seeing any more questions maybe move into discussion oh commissioner M do you have another question sure maybe for staff um it seems like this is probably the third one at least in the last few months where we're seeing an extension is that is that correct or um I the only one I remember was uh ran Shera PUD but uh yeah um that was the the most recent one I believe this is the third time extension since you've been on the commission to my recollection okay so so it seems like a trend and everyone's just trying to get by this rough patch and um get a little more time time okay thank you any discussion fellow Commissioners commissioner velto please uh I'm in favor of granting an extension I think that it warrants it given the circumstances and given how we have evaluated them in the past I think this is consistent um so with that I'd be willing to make a motion okay one moment commissioner Muno or villain away any discussion get closer to the mic it's really difficult to hear what you're saying um but no no no additional comments okay yeah I'll help you out there I kind of thought you guys were going through that I got you commiss man yeah I do have some discussions and and uh concerns here um when this originally came to us uh two years ago the Planning Commission did deny this and it was from best of my recollection denied under the pretense that the area just could not handle and Military Drive and lemon and the state it was could not handle uh these amount of homes um and what's changed since then is two more projects uh less than a quarter mile from this one on the west side and one on the east side of a military drive one consisting of 60 homes and one consisting consisting I believe of 260 homes um this doubles that number um and the infrastructure in the area right now is just cannot handle this um it was it since then so um I will not be in support of this uh again like I said it was it was not passed by the Planning Commission last time because we cannot handle the uh the amount of traffic and and what this is going to bring to a Military Road and limit in that area just just not sustainable out there right now until the infrastructure catches up so that's all I have thank you thank you commissioner any discussion or commissioner VTO do you want to make a motion or thoughts yeah I guess keeps turning off I'm ready to make a motion in the matter of case number LDC 24-22 um based upon compliance with NRS 27830 I move to approve a 2-year time extension on Legacy Village Town Homes tentative map subject to the original conditions of approval okay we have a motion commissioner Armstrong I will second all right we have a motion and a second any more discussion fellow Commissioners okay with that said Michelle let's do a roll call vote please JD Dracula yes Harris Armstrong yes Manny Basera yes Arthur Munos no Carrie ryer yes Alex fto yes Sylvia villena yes okay the motion passes all right motion passes 5 to2 thank you good luck thank you motion passes 6 to1 6 to1 I'm sorry my apologies all right well move on now to case number lc23 d003 Heiser master plan Amendment and resoning looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicants representative there we go uh good evening Commissioners uh for the record Andy derling with wood Rogers representing the applicant uh here tonight uh to present the kaer property um uh we've spoken about this area a little bit uh over the last year or so um this this project area is located on the south side of Interstate 80 right at that Rob Drive interchange U previous projects have come forward uh and approved by this body and so this is uh we we had sort of uh you know teased about this project coming forward it's a little bit different um the zoning was not in place for this property where it was for uh the previous properties and so this required this this master plan and Zoning action first and so before you tonight master plan Amendment um from large lot residential to Suburban mixed juice and a zone change from large lot residential one acre to specific plan development or SPD and the approval of the uh S3 Rob Drive SPD handm workk uh look at the property it's 85 Acres located to the east of The Interchange again on the south side of Interstate 80 uh existing land use large lot neighborhood the proposed uh is Suburban mixed juice with a mix of some uh Park screen ways in open space generally on uh the steeper slope areas uh and on the northeast side actually I can point with this the Northeast side over here uh large natural major drainage way that will remain as open space existing zoning large lot one acre and being proposed as the entire thing is SPD um this project is subject to Hillside development uh and so in the in the SPD handbook we're able to address a lot of the hillside grading uh and major drainage waste disturbances that would occur there are two major dra ways on the property um the first uh being the natural one on the east side which will remain untouched uh and natural the second major drainage way you can kind of see with the Contours here is um parallel to Interstate 80 there's a couple of coverts uh that come under the freeway drain essentially that kind of charlin's area to the north there's about 120 Acres that drain into there and that's what triggers that major drainage way um in the past um there had been exist existing disturbance um you can see kind of this this graded pth area that's easy to see in this color map that was actually some fill that was placed there um in the early 2000s was actually part of the retrack um train trench project this was the receiving site for some of that fill material that came out so that SPD um we utilized the mixed Suburban zoning District as a basis for the design spds essentially use straight zoning code and then modify here and there to be specific to the property um and provide some specificity in our case we provided a a major site plan review level of detail for the grading plans so we provided um you know that preliminary grading drainage utility um to demonstrate our compliance with the hillside ordinance um cuts and fills as well as that disturbance to the major drainage way so we were able to because we provided that level of specificity uh upfront in the SPD um we essentially don't have to go through that permitting in the in the future as long as we canly with um those plans as they were presented um as I mentioned addresses the major drainage way not a a huge um loss there it's kind of a disturbed drainage we anyway it's just really that that drainage coming from the freeway and some of those areas to the north um we do build in some restrictions um to the SPD most specifically you know we have essentially a north and a South pad here the South pad about 22 Acres would be restricted to just residential uses or Park screen ways in open space I'm sorry public quasi public type uses uh and then the north pad would be um it's kind of an either or so um it's 11 acres it's it's not huge and so rather than going through kind of the brain damage of determining um compatibility and buffering requirements if there are a mix of residential and Commercial there we opted to just say you know whatever the first building permit is if the first person in the door is a commercial user the whole 11 acres is going to be commercial and vice versa if the first user is residential it's all residential so we kept it you know relatively simple and and built in those restrictions um furthermore we restrict the North pad um regarding uh the the intensity of development to address secondary fire access um concerns and so we do have built in an optional uh remote secondary access uh that I'm highlighting here that goes all the way out to the South through some tricky Metals Water Authority parcels and ultimately connects into four Street um that access is only required if we go above certain thresholds that are outlined in the international fire code so we took those thresholds and Incorporated them into the SPD so that um we would restrict development on this North pad so essentially if if we have commercial uses that are less than 124,000 square feet or if we have less than 200 um residential units there are some other caveats there but just generalizing and if we stay under 30 feet in Building height um we would not require that additional secondary access so more than likely it won't be built but if by chance a user comes in or some you know some something comes in to that it makes sense um we would have that option to build that if we went over those thresholds um we also um you know as I've been here over the last year kind of presenting on these other properties we're able to address um access and and general infrastructure improvements in the area in concert with our neighboring properties here's an example of the um the grading plans that were provided it's it's that you know what you're used to seeing in these packages of you know major site planin interview or cup level um grading um plans speaking of in infrastructure just is you know of a a a broad overview um there are essentially four Property Owners on this south side it's it's kind of an enclave uh on this Southside of Interstate 80 there's really just these four property owners that are isolated on this kind of this plateau uh above Interstate 80 there um to the West in in the red yellow and green there is the TCA properties they were approved um December January December last year January this year included some single family detached about 200 Town Homes and about 200 multif family units uh the blue area in the middle is the FJ management um you approved a major site planner review for the grading associated with that in the traffic study for that we presented uh a concept of uh the Eastern PAD as a shopping center and the Western PAD as a multif family kind of a mix of multif family they're they're contemplating there U maybe including some senior or some affordable components now we're looking at the the Heiser property uh which is the third of the the three property owners that are working in concert on the infrastructure for the Southside um there's the additional Chalk Bluff LLC or or the Simons property as it's referred to um they've not really been a party to this and they've kind of been on the sidelines a little bit um so as I mentioned this this planning this infrastructure in concert with these adjacent properties an overall traffic study was done identified uh each of the property owners kind of chipped in what they were anticipating to develop over here and that was the basis for the traffic study identified the total trips and and those peak hour trips that were going to occur it also identified um you know the extension of Rob drive and then the ultimately the improvements that would need to be done to um the I8 interchange there at buildout uh the improvements to The Interchange include some some additional turn Lanes on different um terminals of of of the North and South sides of that interchange as well as ultimately signalization of The Interchange so uh We've continued through the process with endot um you know as I kind of told you all along we you know we originally um before we even came forward with TCA we had submitted a traffic study to endot for their feedback um got some concurrence there then they requested an ice analysis which is an intersection control evaluation it looks at all the different alternatives for those intersections that has been submitted and is is represented in the comments that you received from endot and so we're continuing to work through that process ultimately uh you know there will be an encroachment permit and the permitting through endot to look at the physical improvements of of the actual roadway design and Signal design and things like that so we keep uh we we're still marching through that that process one of um one of the other things that we've not necessarily mentioned is is the planning of of another piece of infrastructure which is our Parks and Recreation amenities as part of this entire development the TCA property on the on the west side was kind of the first one in the door and this issue came up and we worked with staff to identify um surrounding parks that are in the area as well as what can be done U because this is again that kind of little Enclave over here um really this is sort of an issue of self-performing on Parks and so um the TCA property was conditioned to provide um a series of pocket Parks this is a slide out of that presentation from the TCA pro project um so it was a series of pocket Parks linked by a trail system and on top of that um those amenities would be some Public Access easements um so that the general public had you know if they're over here rocking the trails things like that would have those those opportunities to use that so what we're looking to do you know there is a um standard that was added to the SPD at the top of uh page 14 in your handout um I think it was ex exhibit I or appendix ey um of the saff report identified a requirement for a 4 acre Park on this side of the freeway specifically on on the the the Heiser property what we're offering today is is what we're asking today is to remove that um because we've been continually to plan Parks as as the rest of our infrastructure on this side and are looking for something you know kind of similar to what was the precedent set with TCA so the Flying Jay he Heiser and TCA properties owners are are working in tandem to plan Parks and Recreation and other amenities um in this area uh one of the things that's identified is is um you know the the reimagine Reno um goals uh for parks in in the City of Reno and um a little bit of a misquote maybe in your staff report saying that developer is required to dedicate Parkland that's not the case the the first and foremost in the concurrency um is that developments especially residential developments are required to pay the residential construction tax that is a requirement of NRS um so that is our first and foremost responsibility in these types of developments then there's an opportunity that we may choose to build Parks ourselves and then seek a credit of those fees um if we so choose they're not choosing to do that they're choosing to pay the fees and build private amenities with some public elements to them um and so also the the the level of service targets so this is kind of the goal the aspiration for parks that we want to have in the city um is generally most residents in the city are going to live within a half mile of uh either a public park or a privately owned Park or Central Gathering Place and this is kind of emphasizing that because again this goes to that's what we're looking to do is kind of provide some of those more privately owned Parks not be necessarily a burden on the parks department to maintain them in the future um but they can still provide that richness of of Park and Recreation amenities that the citizens are going to want in this area we did analyze um uh what I would kind of refer to is Park coverage uh as part of this um this is this exhibit identifies parks in the in the vicinity of of this entire um Plateau area so again TCA FJ and Heiser um and so what you see in the green are all um city and county parks um that are within the first ring that kind of yellow area is a half mile radius and then the outer ring is a mile radius so you'll see there's a number of parks Trail heads um open space areas that were are within the half mile and and even within the mile area from our perspective you know I think the city is looking at it from a city park uh perspective but citizens um you know in my opinion don't are are agnostic to whose park it is you know I'm going to go recreate in an area that that fits my recreational needs and I really don't care if it's a city-owned park or a county-owned park they're open to all citizens of was County and the City of Reena so what we're looking for is a removal of that requirement on page 14 we want to have consistency of these requirements to the other properties that are on the south side of I8 here uh we will continue you know to pay our $11,000 per unit residential construction tax we'll continue to collaborative collaboratively plan trails and park recreation amenities um with on our property and with our neighbors um if you look at the exhibit you know the little green areas that are on there this is a conceptual plan this is kind of the current working drawing of some of the plans that we have for properties um those green areas are all the different you know Park type amenities that would be within um uh this area and so um as you can see you know it's it's scattered throughout there are smaller features a lot of what's being planned over here is multif family type development maybe some town homes and so um code already has a requirement for multif family developments to provide a certain level of of essentially quote unquote parks and open space in in there so what we're what what's kind of dis um uh disconnected here is the requirement to provide a 4 acre park and if it's multif family would have to do the to still do the multif family open space amenities as well um so what you know and essentially looking at it as well you know this is our residential component here really the north pad could be commercial so this south side is our our dedicated residential facility or residential pad it's about 22 acres in size so four acres is about 20% of that entire pad that would be dedicated to a park under this condition rather than providing additional you know units and housing um and so it's taking away from that and it kind of sound it to us it's disconnected in the logic uh of that we also have a a you know trails and and and walkways throughout about four miles of trails and eight mile or eight Acres of kind of these Park amenities are shown on this exhibit so it there is we are able to reach those levels that are in the the reimagine Reno master plan it just looks a little differently it's not maybe uh public parks but it's private type amenities some of them can have um Public Access over the top um you know we're showing you know there are some spectacular views um from this this upper pad here um and and along this Ridge line um the FJ property is is acquiring a little sliver here from the adjacent HOA that'll be flattened and have a little linear park there and so we have you know this Trail Network that's throughout here that has these spectacular views we would anticipate that that would be you know Public Access along there there may be some small you know Park amenity know dog parks and things like that that could be open to the public but if you think of you know your kind of stereotypical uh apartment complex or apartment development you know there may be a a a clubhouse and and pool obviously that would not be open to the public but other areas could so with that concludes my presentation uh and be happy to answer any questions thank you appreciate it we'll now get a presentation from City of Reno staff H Leo commissioner Muno and villain away how was the sound on that that was much better okay this one on Leah that one yeah on and then just make sure you're pretty close to that mic on your right Le thank you I think I can do that give me a second to find my presentation here all righty good evening members of the commission Leah kotti associate planner with City of Reno development services and this evening I am presenting um the Heiser master plan Amendment and rezoning application as Andy stated this site is 85.2 acres and it's located just south of Interstate 80 East of exit 9 Rob Drive today's request is for a zoning map Amendment from llr one to a special plan district and a master plan Amendment from large lot to Suburban mixed juice and pgos which is Parks Greenways and open space so again we have this request for a zoning map Amendment um large lot residential one acre minimum lot size so right now at 85 Acres this property would be allowed to develop approximately 85 single family residences and that's pretty much all it would be allowed to develop at this point so the applicant is asking for a conversion of that zoning to the specific plan district and the specific plan District would be governed by that SPD handbook that's included in your packet the applicant is also requesting this master plan Amendment and this is going to include 62 acres of suburban mixed juice and 23 Acres of parks Greenways in open space which is fairly consistent with the surrounding land use designations as uh the applicant stated this would be uh mixed use Suburban based zoning district there would be two pads that would be developed um as he stated residential on the south pad and it could be residential or commercial on that Northern pad here I wanted to go over some of the deviations between the MS zoning district and the SPD and I do want to point out that staff isn't overly concerned with any of these but I just wanted to present them so they're taking the minimum lot withd from 50 feet to 40 feet um as Andy stated grading Hillside drainage 24 our operations B basically anything that would require uh to a Planning Commission decision can now be handled administratively um Street Frontage requirements they're going to have no Frontage requirements shading of parks and Residences uh it would be allowed to shade parks and Residences standards for large retail establishments we kind of went back and forth on this um the the site isn't extremely conducive to a large retail establishment and those standards were really created to mitigate the effects on the community when those large retail establishments go out of business so we're okay with retaining some of the building design and Architectural standards of that section but not complying with all of them the MS zoning District allows for 129 uses approximately 129 uses if I counted that correctly the SPD is going to prohibit 26 of those uses and they are outlined in that handbook uh maximum wall letter height will go from 5 feet to six feet and this bottom one here about Billboards so in the MS zoning District uh we we do allow for freestanding signs with a maximum of 125 square feet the SPD is asking to have two 400 square foot Billboards and we ask that that be struck out of the SPD so you will see that change in there as for conformance with the master plan uh large lot neighborhood is really conducive to those single family detached homes agricultural uses things like that uh you could see in Andy's presentation with the development of this area going multifamily and Commercial it's just not appropriate anymore so the conversion to the Suburban mixed juice and the pgos will allow the uses that are are being proposed and are adjacent as as well so we staff does support that now here's the line in the SPD that we added regarding parks and the reason that we added this is because when we sent this out for review the parks department came back and said we can't support this request because the master plan requires these parks within a certain area and because they're adding so many res resents to this area we think that it needs to it we need to include this and this this section is part of the con currency management system which is really to make sure that the infrastructure that's required for these developments is going into place at the same time as the development so we don't we have some concern when we hear oh maybe later we'll add some parks maybe later we'll do that well we don't want to see that we want to see it go in at the time of development and I think what's really important here is that we understand that that the developer was a little bit blindsided by this number one but also that um the the surrounding developments the adjacent developments didn't weren't required to meet this standard we're not exactly sure why that's uh something that came about specifically on this one but again if we look at this as an infill area the master plan states that there should be two acres of parks per thousand residences just in this particular development not including the adjacent developments we're looking at I mean if thousand residents go in and we've got an average of 2.3 people per household here in Reno we're looking at 2,300 people coming to this area just in that southern pad so that along with the TCA development really does um add add to the intensity here so we're asking that if we're increasing the intensity of the land use designation and we're increasing the intensity of the zoning why wouldn't we also increase the intensity of all of the infrastructure here including those Parks and Recreation now as Andy stated there are parks in the area um there's the dorkar park there's Chrissy Coughlin there's several of them uh they are not within a half a mile as the crow flies you know you're going to have to drive out onto the freeway and then around in either direction but I do want to point out that I live in this neighborhood I use those Parks all the time and they're always crowded so if we are adding these people if we are adding this many residents to that area it would make sense that we're also going to add those Parks here are the master plan Amendment recommended finding staff has reviewed all of these and is recommending approval of this here is the specific plan District findings of as well the recommended motion is on the board and I am available for questions thank you thank you Lee appreciate it all right we'll now move to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner villan NOA for some of the presentations that although not part of this project are in the same area commissioner MOS commissioner M I had a brief conversation with President tur and I familiar with the site commissioner VTO commissioner VTO familiar with the site spoke with the applicant and the applicant's representative commissioner rer very familiar with the site spoke to the applicants representative commissioner rera spoke with the applicant representative and visited the site this afternoon commissioner Armstrong I am familiar with the site and I spoke with the applicant's representative commissioner dracul same disclosures all right we will now open it up to public comment no correspondence no request to speak forms and no voicemails were received all right anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the Commissioners for questions commissioner VTO please thank you uh lee I have a couple questions for you um you you mentioned uh during your presentation that the zoning density is increased how much has the zoning density increased under the SPD there is no um maximum density in Ms so there is no density if this goes through so it's increased exponentially okay but if they were if the applicants were to pursue uh an amendment to the master plan or change the zoning what what could be allowed versus what they're seeking in the SPD I remember Rec calling a slide where you compared different zoning maybe you could pull that one up so as of right now with the llr one you could have one single family resident per acre so you were going from allowing 85 single family homes to no limit on the density now that being said the applicant is proposing a thousand homes but there there's no density and uh per the traffic analysis that was submitted it was submitted based on 750 dwelling units so right now in the SPD we've capped them at that 750 without um an an additional traffic analysis so as long as they provide that addition traffic analysis the sky the limit why did the other projects that are nearby uh why did they not have a requirement for acreage dedicated to to a park I really can't tell you I didn't work on those projects so I I don't know but I can tell you that our master plan has been in place I think since probably five years now and um and that is part of the policies of the master plan to implement those part and as Andy said they can be private or public but we're seeing a a definite lack of public parks in this area and I do also have a slide on uh public parks versus or neighborhood parks versus uh see I got some extra slides here versus those pocket parks and I just this is straight out of the master plan and I thought that this was important to add into here um because with these pocket Parks they're generally less than an acre there is no minimum required amenities um and as opposed to the neighborhood parks which we do have required amenities these do have to have playgrounds they've got to have shelters with a table they've got to have turf they've got to have courts they've got to have parking spaces and they may or may not have to have a restroom depending upon upon the park um that I'm sorry the amenities that the applicant is referring to um those pocket Parks those are required by Reno Municipal Code so we're asking to reach out from Reno municipal code and look at the master plan policies and the overall development in this area and really what we're going to need what are the families going to need that go into this area so as as far as the so you read the language in the SPD is requiring it be one of the neighborhood parks and not split up four acres into into a bunch of different pocket Parks exactly so I guess I'm concerned with that being the requirement because it seems like you're now then saying to the applicant that they have to take a significant portion of their land has to turn it into park and that hurts their flexibility and their way they can design the property um but it also takes away from potentially putting more housing on that portion of the parcel um I guess do you have an opinion as to how that might affect the pricing of the housing General availability because I look at the master plan and I see that as being a priority um so kind of help me understand how you evaluate that and if you have an opinion as to how it would affect pricing and availability well I can let the applicant answer some of those questions but I think from the staff's standpoint um we're looking at that concurrency management system and having the required infrastructure so would we let let something go in if it didn't have the required infrastructure no we would require the improvements you know if it was uh sewer improvements or something like that we wouldn't say well you know that that's going to hinder them from having you know the financial implications of that are going to hinder them from being able to build more homes or things like that whenever we're looking at these master plan policies we're looking at them as policies and there are conflicting policies within the master plan without a doubt um but I I think at staff's position when I look at this overall area I'm not seeing the Parks and Recreation that are part of that concurrency management system and I can let the applicant answer some more of those I would appreciate that because that that's obviously something I'm concerned about thank you thank you Mr velto commissioner velto uh Andy derling with wood Rogers again um respectfully disagree with staff the concurrency requirements as are stated on the screen directly out of reimagine Reno first and foremost developers are required to pay a residential construction tax or impact fee they may choose then to develop Parks or dedicate Parkland there is an either or here so the concurrency is not what staff is talking about the concurrency is the payment of the residential construction tax that's what's required and I think what we're trying to demonstrate here is that um oh and then one to also highlight right generally right these are these are aspirational goals that are in the master plan these are not um requirements so generally most residents in the city should be located within one half mile of either a park or a privately owned Park or Central Gathering area as this exhibit demonstrates these people are the people that will live here in the future are located within a half mile of existing Parks a number of them both in the county and in the city and we will be providing a um a vast amount of um small amenities throughout these developments so that they're interspersed and and easily accessible um yes there's not a an individual neighborhood park that's going to be developed but those elements that are in the neighborhood parks that staff identified are going to be strung throughout some of these development areas so you know think again right we we don't we don't know what this development is going to look like this is zoning and ultimately as projects come forward um if it's a multif family project uh with 500 or you know four four or 500 units then there's a requirement for open space that's required if it's 100 single family um detached units well that's obviously the population's a lot lower and it's going to look a lot different so by just blanketing this SPD with a 4 acre Park requirement we feel is not um congruent with the ultimate buildout of what could be here so yes it it there may be um uh a large amount because of the population um but we're kind of hindered by some of the other infrastructure requirements um you know we're not trying to blow this up and put you know 5,000 units on this side uh because obviously that would have impacts on The Interchange so there's a balancing act here this is a zoning action by and large and a lot of that planning is going to occur at the project level which comes next so um you know understand where staff's coming here and respectfully disagree on their interpretation of of the that Master Plan policy yeah let me excuse me uh Blake Smith I'm the actual applicant here I just want to uh emphasize in here what we did this was three separate Parcels in here uh we were actually when we uh put the Heiser property into escro and started working on it we approached the other ones uh FJ and TCA and said look this is a unique opportunity this is a piece of property that is it's basically a dead end you come across the freeway there is no through traffic will there ever beat through traffic so you are looking at the end of this development on this part of this um similar we were the developer of Somerset um which is uh obviously a large master plan Community within here uh we took those Concepts from when we were developing Somerset and took it and implied them into here saying that we wanted to do a master planning of kind of the parks and the in the utility system if you take a look at this uh we've gone ahead and worked out the trail system in here if we hadn't worked as a master plan for all three of us to be together uh there would be no connectivity in here there'd be no similarities to it you would have just approved a b and c us working together in here we've gone ahead and made it into a master plan so that it's uh concurrent moves it flows um if you take a look at the the green parts of it uh similar to Somerset where Somerset has no public parks uh 3,700 homes in it and it has no public parks in it because we put in all of the parks ourselves private Parks up there I don't think you've ever heard of a complaint of the fact of hey we're short of parks in Somerset we're short of trails in Somerset that was because we master plan it identically to this and and the benefit I really want to emphasize this is is that we were able to get all three of us to work together here because you would have approved single uh Assets in here that would have not looked at all like this the road systems are concurrent so that they work together the trail systems the park systems uh like I say this shows 8.8 um well there's two things in here each one of the owners in here is is primarily and I can I can't pledge it but almost all of this will be a rental Community each of these owners is looking to retain the ownership of both affordable and market rate apartments in here so by code you're going to have your own ameni set up for each of those uh projects in it if you take a look at it we're working with FJ extensively on here one of the things that we've actually gone uh and they're working on I've helped them put it in is the southern part of that there was no need for the acquisition of that southern part um I I can't point to it here um but anyhow for the acquisition of this right there that was a key thing that we wanted to incorporate into here that's going to be a pocka park dog parks uh in it uh seating on it if you tour the site you saw how that the the bluff basically has 360 degrees on it we wanted to take the southern aspect of it and do something that shows the the southern Mountain uh sheds the the the snow the the beautiful parts of the Sierra and so these are the things that we're working for independently and privately to go ahead and make an integrated project up here the the fact of just a condition jumping up and saying hey we want four acres in here when we've already Master planet to take care of the amenities for this and again this is a dead end I call it a dead end it has no pass through aspect so it's a destination you actually actually have to drive to here to utilize any of this stuff the $1,000 per fee you know you're talking millions of dollars that these fees would be paying that none of that would be going into this project it would be going all into other parts within the community in it so because um so I I think the combination that I really want to emphasize is it's it's an integrated master plan thing just dropping into one of the three components a public park component disrupts kind of the master planning and as you had mentioned is contrary to to the fact of uh if if if you put the park in then the fees shouldn't be paid or you should pay the fees and the parks that should go into other Parks uh for the ulation on that so anyhow uh thank you for your time I just want to give you a a graphic look at that commissioner direct if back can dubil is there going to be any connectivity to the east with that other project that we've seen in front of us um Andy derling for the record um there there are some kind of existing pathways that are down in the in the drainage way here so we're looking at you know uh more there's there's different you know kind of spectrum of trails right so these Trails would be more kind of hiking type trails that would be providing access down um to those existing uh foot paths that are down there whether or not those cross over to the drainage and and the multif family to the east I'm not sure I think there are some kind of sewer pathway you know sewer access roads and so there would be some connectivity for pass but no roadways no roadways okay that was my main question okay just yeah there's only um emergency and pedestrian vehicle access to the to the South which is at this far west end here okay commissioner baser please uh thank you uh commend the applicant Mr Smith for the collaboration with the neighbors I think that's always a good thing um I'm going to turn the question over to this side of the Das perhaps Mike can help us out here is I don't think this is the last time we're going to face this um this question or this inquiry about Parks it seems to be two two different interpretations and it might benefit us as a as a as a body to better understand that moving forward maybe we don't get a clear answer tonight on it or maybe there is one uh I think you know I don't disagree with anything that Mr derling and Mr Smith have said they are correct um in terms of interrup sure is that is that better okay um I I would agree with with what what Mr derling and Mr Smith have said that by paying the park tax the concurrency requirements of the master plan are met um and I also agree that with a statement that that Leah brought up that there are conflicts in our master plan so I think this is well within your purview if you think that what Mr derling is presenting is more appropriate it's within perview to have that changed and put into the handbook removing what staff has proposed great thank you commissioner Munos or villain W I don't want to forget forget about you guys either questions on your end got commissioner mun no questions just L sing along okay um I'm sorry what did you say we can ask question yeah I just want to make sure you're not forgotten here if you want to chime in right now please do yeah um I have a question for Leah something she mentioned about the SPD she said one of the changes is regarding um review administrative review um rather than in front of either commission or city council potentially um Leah can you give me an example of that and and would the park situation be subject to that if this language were not in there thank you for the question um the the answer is that a an example of that would be 24hour uses so let's say that in that Northern PAAD they end up with something that needs a 24hour use normally a request to operate between the hours of 11: p.m. and 6: a.m. does require approval of a conditional use permit that would be heard by the Planning Commission the applicant is asking that instead of it coming to the Planning Commission that that go through a minor conditional use permit which is a 30-day administrative process and review so that's an example of it um an another example of that would be that if there is any additional uh site plan review for anything anything that would trigger a major site plan review grading drainage things like that Beyond what's already being approved with this application it would go through a site plan review rather than a major site plan review before the Planning Commission okay so the situation we did moard and allow them to determine how they wanted to you know to pay the tax and then to put in the par as they see that would regardless that would not come in front of us because it doesn't trigger maor site plan review is that right generally speaking yes unless something within that development triggered it um grading drainage things like that okay okay um and then the signage I am really glad that you guys made the change regarding the signage um so can you explain uh the rationale behind that I I think it was a good choice but um can you just go into some detail on the rationale behind that yes um as a whole we're trying to reduce the number of billboards that are within the city limits and in addition to that that area of the I80 is considered a gateway to Reno it's it's often times people coming here for the first time it's the first part of Reno that they see so we really want to make sure that we are maintaining the scenic value from that side and not just adding Billboards to the road what if in the future they wanted to change that or do an amendment to to add that back in would they be able to do that through administrative process or would that be considered a um major deviation or something that would require it would otherwise require Planning Commission review yeah they would have to do an amendment to the SPD which would be the full process all over again Planning Commission city council everything okay okay thank you so those are my questions for right now thanks all right thank you commissioner rer please um could you tell me what the requirements are for slopes in Parks um I'd have to look it up but I can find that information for you yeah because there as my understanding is they wouldn't be as constrained by the slopes as they would for say housing and parking lots and some of those features well and again if they came forward with Hillside development that would be done under a site plan review rather than a major site plan review so they'd be looking at a 30-day process for that rather than a 65 day process is there maybe an opportunity for some compromise I first of all I want to say I understand the language of the option of the the fee versus the option to build the parks themselves I'm just wondering is there an opportunity in the planning code for these areas say like the limits of grading that would not be 30% slopes to make more passive Park areas I I think that that would be possible and then they could use parking in a shopping center for example it's sort of a shared use opportunity for Parks potentially and that would be reviewed at the site plan review it depends how it was going in but yes how and where and what's being affected by it essentially so we look at these spds um like we would look at anything else for zoning so if it was going in adjacent to the residential development that could be a trigger for a site plan review or something along those lines and also I just want to be clear because you kind of brought it up that that what the master plan says is that you're either going to pay that residential fee or dedication so it it's not both I I I want to be clear about that they would they they would be um let's see payment of the residential construction tax um Andor impact fees so this is under Parks and Recreation concurrency requirements actually let me pull this up sorry to keep going back to this so right here you can see the infrastructure and the service who builds it who maintains it and the funding sources for that so you can see here that new parks are the residential construction tax or developer dedication and it says a developer may choose to build Andor dedicate land for a park and have the cost offset by a refund of the residential construction taxes from the city pursuant to a park development agreement at the discretion of the city council so I just want to clear that they're not that we're not asking them to do both but we do see a deficiency in the infrastructure in the area and we're trying to figure out how to resolve it yeah I saw that presented in the Parks and wreck master plan that the City of Reno had a very that had a shortage of Park and um I wondered if there is an opportunity to have more passive recreational parks instead of like an active playground or a soccer field for example in some of these more sloped areas that wouldn't eliminate their ability to develop so if that's an opportunity I think it I don't know how to put that into a it's not a condition it's just a strong recommendation I suppose and an ask if you will yes thank you commissioner baser please you I can't hear anything we're getting there sorry about that and these mics are a little finicky and and all the Commissioners as close as you can to the mic I think for them too yeah uh maybe this one's for the applicant Mr Smith um what give Leah a chance to look up anything else that uh no thank you Blake Smith okay great thank you Mr Smith correct uh Mr Smith is that correct did I say that Blake Mr Smith yeah okay um one of the criteria mentioned for some of this resoning is to to create a kind of a safe environment specifically uh making it safe for pedestrians and um bicyclist um I think you mentioned that you're one of the parties if not the party behind Somerset correct so so I'm familiar with uh some of that landscape and terrain and have and the walkability and so forth is that Vision or design what we can anticipate in this location for pedestrians and and cyclists I yeah absolutely and that's what I'm trying to emphasize I the amenities whether it's you know what we've taken is instead of the public park concept here and actually privatized it that that's what we've tried to really Implement in here and that's um if I could figure out how to bring back the other screens maybe someone can help me here I'm not familiar with the system here but you know um yeah that one's fine right there if you take a look at this you know we're talking about uh you know reducing it to 2 acres of land dedication or from the four or but if you look at this this is 8.8 Acres right there without your slopes without that's that's in the developable area that's not in the slope open space areas so uh you take this the red system there is basically the trail system simar to like we were trying to that we implemented and put into the somerset system up there uh that's 4.1 miles of open space uh Trail systems if you'll take a look at it we put them on the perimeter so that you can enjoy all the view setups and everything in it but that this has its Park system in it already I guess is what I'm trying to say okay and it's grander than what we're talking about a square 4 Acres it's integrated it's thought through it's master are planned um and on top of that the ,000 fees would not need or be required to be utilized in here those fees could all go into other systems and other Parks is what I'm trying to say this is all self-funded this 8.8 acres and the four acres of trails there's no burden on the city to maintain it there's no there's no cost of the city uh to develop it and all those fees that we've be paying will be going into other Park systems in it this is all private I I mean privately paid even though it's open to the public and I I just I really want to emphasize this is really integrated and set up the way that I think the public would want it um at no burden to the public as far as cost and allowing the Thousand fees to go out and actually help the public in other ways sir right thank you Mr Smith and may I have a follow up please go ahead um while you're in the war War seat here uh how how how does the proposed idea for my fellow commissioner um resonate with you about the kind of passive Park like the compromise I you know and helped me with it a little bit I I was struggling a little bit on the on hearing with it but um maybe you could expand one more time former commission well at the zoning level we don't typically look at site design except that you have an SPD handbook and something again you're not in pad in the northern pad you're not defining the use until the first building permit comes in but if it were an anchor grocery store with ample parking and the limits of grading extend beyond it would be a more gentle slope but is that an opportunity then to have parking next to a recreation park type area couldn't maybe support a soccer field or something very flat but you have a rolling hill for example to plant upon I don't think it's really necessarily you have to have a defined sort of active park space to meet the park requirement and that's why I was curious what what the slope requirement was for park space because if it's a two: one maybe you could use graded areas as park space yeah and I want to make sure I answered appropriately the the areas that we have in here the 11 and the 20 uh 27 acres in there that that2 22 excuse me that is the developable area uh the slope areas in inside of it um you know other than the open space areas I I do want to note one thing that's over here do you see the cursor up here yeah you know we'll leave uh 30 some Acres of open space over here that will be undeveloped uh you know contrary to a a park and if you go to the north side of it Northwest um I don't want to call it dense but it's very um regimented development it's subdivision subdivision sub this really offers the opportunity for a lot of open space that major drainageway that goes down really is is picturesque that's why we want to stay away from it obviously but that red line that goes down to it would allow the people to go ahead and enjoy it outside of anything that we're talking about in here um and so when we talk about this there there is grander uh points to it I need to be careful on her question I don't uh help help me can you guys hear me if I okay yeah so if if I'm they may not online or on the phone yeah I can hear you I had a hard time hearing rer but I can hear you um and I was able to hear the applicant okay so if I if I'm kind of hearing you correctly commissioner rer you're you're saying essentially can Parkland quote unquote generic referred to um not be dedicated in the 22 acre and 11 acre pad areas but it can it come out of the other areas outside of that maybe those that are already identified as pgos um I would say yes oh if that is the question absolutely yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah and just like I said with the major Parkway I I mean the drainage way I would be challenging on a 30% slope perhaps to call that a park but there are areas on your slope map that are maybe a little gentler and that's why I was curious from the city if there were requirements on flatness and I don't know yeah I don't know the requirement there um if if there is a certain grade that's required for Parks um I mean open space areas usually can be steeper and you know they would have more like you've been you know saying more passive Trails you know a little bencher a little view Vista area or whatever um interpretive signs you know things like that um certainly can be in Ste deeper sloped areas um but not a soccer field right yeah so and we've always we've interpreted this fouracre requirement as a 4 acre flat piece of our very developable area that we're you know spending a lot of money to to grade out um so there there's a there's a there's a kind of conflicting uh conflict there well I appreciate the the clarification there and going to commissioner B's Point like I'm curious because I think we'll be seeing more of these kinds of questions so thank you that was it Commissioners online commissioner Munos or ban NOA any questions yeah when was the um I know it was a different project it was a neighboring project does anyone know when the last hearing was I just want to take a look at those minutes really quickly um again I know it's a separate proc project but I just want to see how it's all going to flow Andy derling um for the record I know the TCA the last TCA approval was in January of this year I think the first couple hearings were in December of last year and then the FJ approval was in the summer the summertime June July last summer yes well I have a question perhaps for for for Leah go uh this is commissioner Basera um kind of change change the topic from Parks to Wildlife just for a quick second I remember going through the report and there was mentioned about five Nest um I don't know if they're owls or Eagles or something along those lines um is everything okay there or does anything need to be mitigated or I don't think any mitigation is required Beyond what was expressed in that letter from um endow oh okay and do you recall what the recommendation was or if everything was just hunky dory I think that some mitigation was required um do you I was just a little confused because they they listed some dates from the 70s and 80s as far as uh so Andy derling um so endow has a database of um essentially it's it's um species um habitat areas and so there was a map associated with it it should you know showed some big blobs up in the hillsides it was like mule deer habitat right um so anytime there's like a drainage way that has especially like trees and things like that there's there's opportunities for Raptors like eagles and Falcons and things like that to have nesting areas we look at that as part of our major drainage ways analysis and so we um we have a wild L biologist that looks into that there's a major drainage WS report that was part of your your pack and part of the SPD and so it looks at really it's that Disturbed drainage way which is a one along I there's like it's devoid of life I it's at the side of the of the freeway and there's really very little vegetation in there could there be some in the um you know major drainage way on the east side maybe but that's an area that we've it's in open space and we're we're staying far away from it so we don't anticipate there being any impacts okay great thanks Andy yeah Commissioners online considering moving into discussion unless you guys have some questions commissioner M I'm good I'm ready to move into discussion okay ready to move into discussion please if anybody wants to get it going commissioner R please go ahead um I believe Leah looked up the answer oh okay I'm sorry please go ahead I did look up the answer and recreational facilities are permitted on slopes greater than 30% so that would definitely be allowed and and I'm sorry if this came off that we're that we're requiring four acres of flat land because I I don't think that's what we're really intending I I think what we're looking for is a is a 4 Acres of recreational ameni for the res for these thousands of residents that are going to be essentially landlocked in this area and and I don't think there's any reason why that needs to be four acres of flat land I don't I I don't think that it can't incorporate some hiking trails up into these 30% slopes and things like that so I yes to answer your question so so on top of that if you don't mind commissioner Dracula so in regards to this requirement in the SPD would we still want to to remove that and restate it I'm just looking for clarification and commissioner RAR if you want to jump in too cuz yeah that that's how I took it when I read it and also talked to the applicant about okay all of a sudden we threw in this 4 acre requirement and obviously thinking it was developable land which shoots a lot of this you know this larger development you know right in the foot so we're not there I don't think that's what Parks and Recreation intended I think that they were hoping to utilize some of the open space that could be dedicated to the city for future development of a park okay so dedicated to the city not necessarily requirement of the developer because also we're still they're still open to giving ,000 a unit exactly so it would be in lie of the residential construction tax okay just to be clear there they can pay that thousand per unit and it goes somewhere else um or they can dedicate and and so in this this case we're asking for the dedication and you know um it's completely up to the Planning Commission how they'd like to word that or if we need to make some modifications for the recommendation to city council well I think we're all open to suggestions okay and I guess my question is in for the applicant Andy if you don't mind I feel a little clear from what Leah has stated is that clear to you guys or what are you guys thinking maybe if I Andy dering again for the record if I restate my understanding back to you maybe that yeah so we are understanding that the 4 acre dedication could come from anywhere on the property not and not have to come out of the North or South pad it could come out of the rest of the open space that we've already identified is that correct that's how I understood it and she's shaking her head behind yeah yeah so I look I mean yes I think that's reasonable I you know unfortunately we didn't have you know get the opportunity to kind of have that conversation with Parks um you know as this was sort of thrown at us at the at the 11th hour so yes if that's the understanding of staff and and the Planning Commission I think that's reasonable and so this piece in the SPD you be fine as is I might want to add some sure sure it's a little bit of detail I would too than yeah okay okay just specify that it's not coming out of the developable pad areas it's you know um in addition to that or I something like that if I can jump in I think it would be staff's recommendation if if this is the route you choose to pursue that it be clarified that a minimum of 4 Acres of parks and or recreational land be dedicated outside of the depicted pad areas included in the SPD yeah and it's it's dedication not Improvement right that was the other caveat to that as well yeah yeah's I think that that makes sense to have a clarification that it's dedication not that they're not responsible for constructing the park it's dedication only in in lie of the um the ,000 per unit tax we'll come back to that fine verbage here in a moment we'll keep going discussion and if that's where we land we'll come back and dial it in um fellow Commissioners still in discussion feeling clear about what we've just learned uh those online we have shaking heads uh commissioner villan NOA commissioner Muno feel free to chime in yeah this is commissioner villan waya if I may um so yeah I think that that works um um and actually that's how I understood it so that's fine but I do I do want to preserve the right to have major deviation still be presented particularly given the compromise um you know I I think major deviations I mean we're already doing this SPD you know with this compromise being included I think it is appropriate and um to have them not just have administrative review but still have them come in front of the Planning Commission so I would ask for that to be removed um and if that is removed then I could be a yes can we hear a response yeah from Andy I I guess I'm I'm I'm confused so right now we you know we presented um basically major side plan review level of detail in the engineering drawings uh like this um and and so I think what's included in the SPD is if have any major deviations from this um we would go through an administrative process um correct yeah which you know I think is what we had negotiated with staff which we felt was you know Fair um so we would like to keep that if that's yeah that is the plan right there yeah yeah and and a deviation from it would require us to go back to the administrator yeah yeah I understand that but I would like to preserve the right to have it I mean if it's a major deviation and it hasn't been reviewed and we're reviewing the STD you know I don't I can't think of any examples and if we've covered everything then there's nothing really to worry about um but if there is a major deviation I think we should be able to have that reviewed meaning from what we're presenting here if the grading significantly changes from this which is written into the Pud or SPD sorry as um essentially the Disturbed area plus 10% so to allow for kind of some massaging so if we go past the 10% they would want it to come back to the Planning Commission or just any other major de that that's the most likely um and maybe and let me let me help you both out Leah wants to come up and um chime in and we're fine with that if it goes out of the 10% of what we're presenting here yeah than all right just to just to clarify Leah picotti for the record there's no language about major deviations in this SPD um so a a major deviation would have to come to the Planning Commission I think what we're talking about here is that there's a section in the review process on page three of the SPD that says Project Specific design has been provided with the SPD that would otherwise fulfill the requirements of a major site plan review so that's what we're talking about here with this grading we're saying that our staff has already looked at it you guys are looking at it it was included in your packet and we're okay with this moving forward if a major site plan review Beyond what's being approved today came forward let's say they wanted to do something else or they wanted to expand beyond that 10% or who knows what it was that they could do that administratively because the bulk of the grading that's happening on this property is being reviewed with the project today does that make sense yeah that's how I understood it I just I Ed the wrong verbage I said major deviation that's just my I I was incorrect in the term that I used but that is how I understood it and and I and what I'm saying is I think you know given what we're reviewing if it changes I think we should still be able to have that reviewed I don't anticipate a change I'm sure the developer doesn't anticipate a change but if it's large enough to where um you know it triggers that we should be able to review it let me double check this verbage here because I thought that we had in here that if it deviates by over 10% that it does have to correct yes so if they deviate Beyond 10% it will come to the Planning Commission oh okay okay so if there's so that was my concern because obviously if it passes the way it is yeah there's no reason for it to come back but but if if there's a significant change or if the land's going to be used slightly different than how it's being presented or how it's been passed today then I was then my position is that it should come back because then it's not what we passed you know there shouldn't be a pass you know because today they could pass something and then in a a year they're like ah we don't really like that but fortunately we don't have to go to Planning Commission we can just go to the administrative I can see you know not that the applicant would do that but I could see that being you know a bad act or taking you know abusing that kind of power um so that's my only concern but other than that I yeah I'd be fine if if it's already in there okay so commissioner waver you're fine as is right now yes I'm fine with it as is it because for my understanding Leah what you just clarified you're saying that it would have to come back in front of the Planning Commission okay correct okay so that's fine I thought that it wouldn't have to and that administrative review is all that would be required if there was any I was following along with you I agree and I'm glad it's clear too so thank you uh commissioner berer please sure just wanted to say that these are the type of projects and conversations that uh make me really proud to be sitting here amongst all of you because we obviously had different opinions from the applicant staff and uncertainty amongst Commissioners and it's good to see that we can empower the private sector to get stuff done uh make sure that they don't always have to come back for the onesies and Tuesday right and uh for anything major that uh they do come and check and we collaborate together and again commend you uh Blake for working with your neighbors and finding Solutions and Andy as well so thank you all and my fellow Commissioners you look like the brave soul who wants to make the motion oh anymore oh commissioner AR I so sorry all right you're you're good I just was quiet on this hearing many of my questions were uh addressed uh previously so I just wanted to make sure I got some comments in my main concern at the beginning of this process was um I thought that this requirement or this language from Parks and R was effectively requiring this uh this 4 Acres on the flat pths which I didn't think uh was appropriate given kind of the scope of the adjacent properties that have been through the process and you know I've been a part of all three so I couldn't really understand how that was congruent um I think commissioner rer suggested kind of an elegant solution sounds like everyone's on board with um and it sounds like ultimately that is what you were getting at anyway um one of the things I couldn't really wrap my head around was well we have all this park screen ways open spaces so why wouldn't that just be kind of like where the entitlement for the parks go um so anyway I'm comfortable with uh the amendment to sort of clarify that language so a very minor Amendment um apart from that I think it's a very good project and and appreciate the the dialogue and thanks for going through kind of that requirement I think it was hard for me personally to to understand what was required versus what was kind of a policy aspiration so appreciate you taking some time to to walk through it a couple times for us commissioner Munoz you want to chime in uh I'm all good thank you okay sounds good commissioner berera commissioner berera I will take our lusterous leader Challenge and make the motion um but I do need a little help because we're not in our usual spot where thank you [Music] sir um call for the question so on the matter of case number LDC 23-3 Heiser master plan Amendment and resoning based upon compliance with 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 Amendment subject to condition one and conformance review by the regional Planning Commission Amendment the amendment friendly Amendment with the friendly amendment that was just that's why I have my line just to note that that as as amended that the the four acres would be outside of the pad areas and in lie of ,000 per unit tax correct correct all right we have a motion I'm commission go ahead quick clarification the billboard language exclus the keeping the Billboards off was included as okay thank you we have a motion second got a second from commissioner velto any further discussion can you repeat the motion I didn't hear it clearly so I'm not sure what was in the motion all right take two uh should I rep the case number and everything sure uh on the matter of case number LDC 23-3 Heiser master plan Amendment and rezoning based upon compliance with 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 Amendment subject to condition one and conformance review by the regional Planning Commission in addition to the friendly Amendment per discussion commissioner villin did you catch all that yeah what was the amendment what amendment is he referring to the one that uh Mike Ry stated we can go back over it again for the record sorry yeah it's just I'm not it's it's just hard to hear everything so yes please I I just I'm not sure what the amendment is the amendment to condition one would be that the 4 Acres of the 4 acre dedication for park space would be outside of the identified pad areas and in lie of the residential uh construction tax or Park Tax inlo of the what the $1,000 per unit Park Tax oh no I don't I oh no I didn't so there's not going to be uh I thought because we were giving them the option that the tax that they would would be paying the tax so this amendment means that they would not be paying the tax the amendment would if they dedicated four acres of Park area they would not be required to pay the park tax that that's our kind of our standard procedure how how it's outlining code oh okay I'm sorry uh so I hate to do this okay so I just didn't hear I was confused I understood that they I thought we were giving them the option because we were being flexible so I'll just be a no I mean I'm I'm just going to be a no because I yeah uh we have a we have a motion I'd like to second the motion okay we have a motion and a second any further discussion see none we will do a roll call vote please Michelle yes dracolich yes Armstrong yes Basera yes Munos yes ryer yes belto yes villain Anda no motion passes six to one okay thank you all good luck with your project all right closing item number four moving to item number five trucky Meadows Regional planning leaz report do we have one we do not this evening okay closing item five moving to item six staff announcements uh no staff amount announcements I just would like to thank the city of Sparks for graciously allowing us to use their facilities and especially Mr Rundle who I know would probably rather be at home sitting on his couch right now for sticking around and and uh being a good sport so we appreciate that great closing item six moving to item seven commissioner suggestions for future agenda items please commissioner Basera sure commissioner Basera uh minor requests maybe for Mike and crew or staff I mean um was just wondering since it's the end of the year if it might be okay for us to have a summary presented to us on our impact or the type of uh work that came before us uh what's been approved some Trends just so we have a good sense of what 2023 uh brought us absolutely no we we we monitor that internally and we can put together a presentation and have that at uh I would say the second meeting in January realistically just with the holidays we can get that get perfect thank you sir another suggestion oh commissioner VTO please if we could be notified next time it's in the city of spark City Hall just I'm just kidding yeah thank you thank you so much Michelle I really appreciate you funny guy all right closing item seven item eight public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment no correspondence no voicemails and no request to speak forms were received okay anybody in the chambers wish to speak on General Public comment seeing none of the chambers we will close item eight open up item nine for adjournment all right all in favor hi good I you too thank thank you everyone