[Music] all right everybody thank you for coming to the regular meeting of the Reno City Planning Commission today's date is Thursday June 20th 2024 6: p.m. we will kick it off with the Pledge of Allegiance commissioner Munos please which it stands na all right Heather item two roll call please Harris Armstrong is absent Manny Basera present Arthur Munos here Carrie rer here Alex VTO is absent newa dulich here all right we have a quorum thank you all right we'll move to item number four approval of minutes item 4.1 Reno City Planning number three oh my God number three thank you geez my apologies everyone number three public comment uh this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment uh members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the zoom link provided on the agenda specifically https colon links. reno.gov SL a Sorry 4 A1 capital F capital e capital n capital Y it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to 3 minutes per person it may pertain to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter not agendized for possible action on today's agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded 3 minutes if you an 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 uh we did receive correspondence that was General nature and not specific to any items on this agenda these were forwarded to the Planning Commission and have been entered into the record and I believe you have a request to speak for him in front of you thank you he appreciate it yes we have n lanter wishing to make a statement um no so I got it right oh no well I'm so sorry no well please feel free to state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes uh here right there it should be on so hello my name is Noel lanter I'm a resident of 1165 cordone Avenue um that's where the the vaugh building is just going up that three story huge building I feel like they could have put it on a different quarter but it's right against my f fence line like 20 ft um which is huge cuz I'm horrified of middle schoolers and there's G to be hundreds of them looking in my backyard every day forever but that's not the point what I want to bring to you guys is to update these laws in which people are notified of what's Happening we received um a small blue piece of paper that got lost in all four of my neighbors coupons or whatever thrown out the the um newspaper like nobody reads the newspaper anymore and then the sign across and there was no intent or understanding on the scale or scope of what's going on and so now like there's this huge we never even had a chance to ourselves so I want to move to ask you guys to update these laws into informing individuals on how the scale and what's going on and and through a certified letter so that you know that that people know what's going on and now um not only that but I'm hoping maybe you guys could also help us maybe create some kind of privacy structure for us my neighbors my next door neighbors too they have the pool he's a a black veteran with no legs and his wife likes to swim naked I don't know so like can we like get some can you guys help us with the Private stre Structure and and last um but not least the they're starting construction at 7 a.m. and and I I mean come on 8:00 right this is not something I can put ear plugs in for this is my whole house rumbling I I brought this so I could play it for you I don't know if you want to hear it it's really loud I won't do it it's like so um I mean can can you guys do anything for me and my neighbors to help because they're already contacting their lawyers so are we but if we can like have this conversation here and now maybe we won't have to contact our lawyers to further extend this conversation with our our privacy our you know our home a value going down and everything that we're going through is just pretty kind of harsh and I don't want this to happen to you guys some more with other places that you're building so I mean update the laws and certified mail would be great thank you thank you as well staff okay and if you want to we can't discuss that now and answer question but you can reach out to staff and they may be able to help you with some of the items okay uh Heather any more requests to speak forms voicemails anybody on Zoom we did not receive any voicemails and nobody has their hand up on zoom and I don't have any more requests to speak forms okay thank you anybody in the chamber W wish to speak in general public comment we will get to the items down the road here and have public comment for those but anything General in nature please let me know now seeing none we will close item three public comment and now we'll go to item four uh item 4.1 Reno City Planning Commission regular meeting of June 6 for possible action commissioner mon I move to approve the minutes all right we have a motion commissioner banway but I have to abstain okay commissioner b a second and I also have to abstain Comm do we have enough we do okay all right all in favor Hi I hi all right we have three votes minutes approved moving to item number five public hearings any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard will need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary alternatively you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of this meeting I item 5.1 has been postponed but we do want to give people the ability to speak on this item if anybody has come Heather any requests of speak forms voicemail Zoom nothing for that for this item anybody in the Chambers wishing to speak on public comment on item 5.1 all right seeing none we will close public comment and that item will be postponed do we have a date certain uh not at this point most likely July 17th but uh we will know we're working with the applicant to bring that back okay thank you all right moving on item 5.2 case number lc24 d52 Chisum mobile home park MPA and zma it looks like Leah yes for the record Leah picatti an associate planner with the City of Reno development services and this evening I am going to be presenting an application for a master plan Amendment and some rezoning so this particular request is a little bit complicated but I'm going to break it down so that it's a bit simpler and really what I want to point out here is that this is really just a cleanup and what we're cleaning up here is number one uh when Chisum Street was abandoned it did not receive a master plan or a zoning District so we're going to establish those today we're going to bring some GC Parcels into conformance with the master plan uh of mixed employment and then we're going to correct an encroachment issue that's going on with an existing mobile home park so we're really looking at four separate requests and I'll go through each one of those in detail here so regarding the first one it's a 1.8 acre parcel and it is the Chisum street rideway now this particular piece of roadway was created back when they were doing the retrack project and this was an access road for the retrack project after that project was completed the city sold that roadway to the adjacent owner of the parcels to the South and eventually bought the parcels to the north as well so pretty much all the GC Parcels that roadway and then the the GC Parcels to the north and that industrial parcel there are all owned by the same person so again that Chism Street was abandoned in 2020 it was never assigned a land use uh designation or a zoning District so today what they're asking us to do is to establish that zoning District of mixed employment and to establish the master planed land use designation of mixed employment here you can see on the left hand side of your screen that it has no exist land use at this time and on the right hand side of your screen you'll see that the property to the north already has the mixed employment land use designation and the property to the South is Suburban mixed use the next properties that we're looking at here are these two GC segments that are over here on the end these are the two that are not in conformance with the master plan as you just saw the master plan on these Parcels is mixed employment um you guys have seen this before General commercial is not uh one of the zoning districts that is in conformance with that so we're going to change them to mixed employment and I know it's a little bit confusing but it's a mixed employment zoning district and a mixed employment uh land use designation so we want to change them to mixed employment within the mixed employment land use designation we couldn't have made that more confusing right um here this next parcel is industrial it's 1.56 Acres the applicant is requesting essentially to down Zone this from industrial to mixed employment and that's really just for continuity throughout the site so that the whole site ends up with that mixed employment designation the final one here is this is to resolve an encroachment issue that existing mobile home park that you see in yellow there is encroaching onto the GC parcel the applicant has applied for a boundary line adjustment which you can see right here sort of that flag shaped piece there in the middle and so once that boundary line adjustment is completed the encroachment will be resolved but they'll end up with a weird strip of GC so you'll have split zoning on that parcel and what they're asking for is just to rezone that from GC to multifamily so that that parcel ends up with one zoning District at the end so here you can see what the existing zoning is like right now on the left hand side and the proposed zoning on the right hand side so as you can see Chism Street would become mixed employment and all of those properties to the north would also become mixed employment I do have a summary of uses and development standards that kind of compare that GC zoning District to the industrial and the industrial to the mixed employment these were provided in your staff report I'm happy to go over them with you if you like but at the moment I'll skip past them just in the interest of Time Master Plan Amendment findings are on the board staff has reviewed red these and founded it to be the request to be in conformance with all of these findings here's the zoning map Amendment findings again staff reviewed these and found it to be in conformance therefore staff is recommending approval we are recommending that the city council we recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend that the city council approve the master plan and Zoning P zoning map Amendments of course subject to conformance by the regional Planning Commission that concludes my presentation I'm available for questions and the applicant also has a presentation thank you thank you Leo all right looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicants representative all right good evening Commissioners uh for the record Aubrey Powell an associate attorney uh with Lewis Roa here today representing the applicant hint on uh these zoning map Amendment requests and this master plan Amendment request obviously we just saw Leah's presentation so I don't want to spend too much time going over the technical details that you've just heard so I'll try to Breeze through that and spend most of my time just talking on uh the merits of the request and why it conforms to the master plan like Leah said this is primarily just a cleanup operation here um it it seemed like when we got started we continued to find more and more opportunities for cleanup and so we thought we'd come here with all of them at once um and get this done in one Fell Swoop so just to situate us we're talking about uh the corner of West Second Street as it turns into Dickerson Road um this is where the Elma state is uh which is owned by the applicant and the River West uh mobile home park also owned by the applicant so like Leah said we just have these two General commercial Parcels to the north of Chisum Street just south of the railroad and Fourth Street uh does not conform to the master plan designation of mixed employment um I know that's a goal that's been identified by staff to start bringing Parcels into conformance um and we have that opportunity here pretty simple uh request for that one when we first started talking about this application we met with staff multiple times to try to determine one their support for this but also the best zoning District to choose to bring this into conformance so I've provided the list of those conforming base zoning districts for mixed employment um as you can see we were pretty limited on what we could choose uh because industrial and industrial commercial are limited to properties that are already existing with that zoning um and then pretty much all the others really just didn't make sense for this particular uh or these particular parcels and so we landed on mixed employment um it seemed to be not only the best fit but really the perfect fit and I just pulled this little blurb from the staff report um representing that this zone change from GC to me is consistent and compatible with the existing land uses and the immediate vicinity um and that the me zoning District makes the most sense so then we get to this industrial parcel and really like Leah said this is a down zoning but concurrently with this application we also submitted some boundary line adjustment requests and with boundary lines changing it became very clear that consistency was really important here because we could end up with another split zoned parcel which is what we're trying to actually get away from so for cleanup purposes we thought let's just go mixed employment it doesn't change any future development plans for this parcel um the development standards are pretty similar so we did that to make our lives simple and the staff's life simple and to avoid potentially running into a situation down the road where we're back at a split zoned parcel and we're standing here in front of you guys trying to rezone again so I figured there would be questions about because it's mentioned in the staff report the development plans for two of these Northern Parcels there has been a site plan review already approved the first one is for phase one which is 163 mini storage facility and that's on the parcel that's going from industrial to employment and that is permitted by right in both those zones so the zone change doesn't change anything as far as that approval goes there will be some additional use specific standards but we've already met with staff and we have no issue Meeting those standards and then the parcel to the west of that we have been approved to uh develop additional overflow parking for the Elma state for an additional 36 spots um we intend to meet all the you know minimal uh minimum Landscaping standards and everything for that parcel as well and then we get to this former public roadway Chisum Street which we now just kind of refer to it as a private a access driveway um like Leia said when this was sold it did not end up with a master plan land juice designation or zoning District something we discovered as we started working through this uh history of the property and so with conversations with staff we determined that mixed employment made the most sense here because it uh is consistent with those adjacent properties to the north um and now that this is no longer a roadway it's a proper parcel it needs to be zoned appropriately U my understanding is is that through the master plan Amendment it will be reviewed by the uh Regional Planning Commission and right now they haven't um identified any conformance issues and then the last one this is our cleanup of the encroachments in the yellow there we have the River West Mobile Home Park and in the red is the Elma State parcel there are some structures on that mobile home park that are encroaching onto the Elma State's parcel so the boundary line adjustments already been approved and like Leah said we don't want to end up with another split zoned parcel so we just need to rezone that small little portion from GC to mf211 then I just pulled these Maps but you've already seen these kind of the last item is the merits to this application and why it conforms with the master plan so because of the master plan Amendment we did host a neighborhood meeting earlier this month and I think we sent out like 300 plus notices not many people showed up but those that did show up there was this um consistent sentiment I felt I felt from the neighbors of appreciation for the applicant for what she's done for this little corner of West Second Street um she's not only preserved this historic Chism house um and the mobile home park next door which I didn't know it had its own hundred-year history but she's kind of breathed new life into this little corner here and the neighbors are very appreciative of that and there was certainly support for her taking these kind of vacant undeveloped Parcels to the north and doing something else with them so it's enhancing the Aesthetics of the community which from what I could hear from those who did attend that was very appreciated by all the neighbors and the business owners um and I know for the applicant this has been a labor of love for her for the last decade she's invested millions of dollars but also her her time and her energy um with the help of her family to redevelop these Parcels into something really beautiful to look at and she just wants to continue that effort um now with these Northern vacant Parcels that's that I'm here for questions thank you I we appreciate it I will now go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner villaa please no disclosures uh commissioner M I'm familiar with the site commissioner berera I am familiar with the site and I did speak with the applicants representative commissioner rer commissioner rer yes familiar with the site and they spoke with afans rep commissioner Dracula same disclosures chair I actually forgot to mention I am familiar with the site I should have said that I apologize thanks thank you all right we will now open it up for public comment Heather any request to speak form zooms voicemails no correspondence voicemails or requested speak forms for this item great anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we'll close public comment and go to the Commissioners for questions of the staff or applicant Comm M I'll start uh Leah could you step up real quick so obviously uh obviously there's a lot to this can you just give us a quick 30 second breakdown of exactly what we are uh motioning for here please yes so what you're motioning for is a recommendation of approval to the city council for the zoning um so those those four zoning requests uh is a recommendation to the city council and then the master plan Amendment the Planning Commission adopts that by resolution and recommends that the city council adopt it and then basically what happens is when we go to city council they will um they will if they approve it they'll adopt it based on conformance from the regional Planning Commission then I'll take it to the regional Planning Commission and then it'll come back to the city council for adoption that's the explanation I wanted thank you and if we propose a motion on this can this be done in one motion it can yes the motion that's on the board okay thank you that's all I need commissioner R Meer any questions no no questions ready to make a motion please do commissioner B uh based on compliance with the applicable findings I move to adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend the city council approve the master plan and zoning map amendments subject to conformance review by the regional Planning Commission excellent we have a motion commissioner m i I will second I'm just going to add in the case number just for the sake of uh paperwork uh case number LDC D 24- 0052 Chism mobile home park MPA and zma okay thank you we have a motion in a second any discussion seeing none all in favor I I hi any opposed hearing none motion passes 5 to zero good luck with your project all right we are now closing item 5.2 moving mov to item 5.3 case number LDC 2455 Airstream condition Amendment here we go Heather presenting yes hello all right good evening Commissioners Heather Taylor assistant planner here to discuss a request for a condition Amendment for a proposed Airstream dealership the 4 acre project site is located on kitsy Lane between between Lyon and Grove uh in April 2022 the site was approved for a condition conditional use permit to establish an auto dealership the land ended up being sold and with the intent of using it using the existing entitlement but for an RV dealership instead the applicants are requesting to amend condition number one related to the approv site design and to remove condition number seven related to a required noise study the subject site is Zone General commercial which is pretty consistent with the overall commercial area uh there is residentially zone property within 300 ft of the project site which will come into play later on so condition number one is a standard condition that is applied to every entitlement it requires that the project comply with city code plans reports materials Etc as they were submitted in this case the original entitlement was reviewed and analyzed using the site plan on the screen the intent was to demolish the building and build a new one that would better cater to an auto auto dealership uh they designed a building that would provide a larger parking lot for inventory storage and an expanded service center the proposed side design associated with this request would utilize the building in site as it exists today the applicant would prefer to have a larger building to accommodate an interior showroom instead of a large parking lot area uh the existing building only has a few rollup bay doors on the Southeast corner and only one of those can be used to transport RVs in and out uh the only proposed exterior operations are uh a dump station propane refueling and a wash bay all of which are only used during business hours and not available for use by the General Public public the original condition number seven is on the screen uh it says prior to the issuance of any building permit a sound study from a qualified acoustical consultant shall be provided subject to staff review and approval any mitigation measures necessary to achieve compliance with applicable applicable noise standards required in condition six shall be incorporated into project design and verified prior to issues of building permits as I mentioned the applicant initially requested to delete this but staff didn't feel that was appropriate for a couple of reasons first the nearby residentially zone property is still there and we need the ability to mitigate any noise impacts related to um forther protection second this use is pretty broad as it encompasses the sale or renal of automobiles trucks Mobile Homes RVs boats and trailers um it's possible that the proposed it's possible that the pro proposed business will vacate the premises in the future and another automobile de dealership could occupy IT staff is instead instead recommending that condition number seven be revised do you only require the sound study if the service area is expanded or if a new auto use other than an RV sales repair is proposing to move in on the screen are the required findings for a conditional use permit staff believes all findings can be met with the provis application materials and recommends approval of this request subject to the revised conditions listed in the staff report here is the recommended motion and I am available for questions thank you heather appreciate it we we be getting a presentation from the oh great coming up sir good evening my name is Connor riddle uh with camper croll and I'm here on behalf of the of uh Lithia real estate who is the property owner and applicant and before you tonight is a conditional use permit Amendment uh for an Airstream dealership so a little bit of a background of the location it's located at 2580 kky Lane uh it's about on uh 4.25 acres and currently there is a vacant 25,000 squ ft commercial building it used to be an old uh Furniture Store here's kind of a broad view of the location you can see it is west of the airport um just south a few blocks south of Plum Lane the facil will operate from Tuesday to Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and we'll have approximately 20 employees looking at uh the surrounding land use and Zoning designations this is a very Auto use Centric location uh nearly all of the surrounding uses are Auto oriented besides a used bookstore on the east side um as you can see there are dealerships on the north and south side uh CAD cor quter on the Southwest and then Car Wash and other auto repair services surrounding it uh the uh the land use designations are Suburban mixed use in the surrounding areas along with uh the zoning is General commercial uh except for uh some neighborhood commercial on the Southeast side so this is to amend the uh conditional use permit approved on April 20th of 2022 uh the applicant of that was FAA Acquisitions 3 and as Miss Taylor mentioned uh the property has been sold to Lithia um this approval from the conditional use permit allowed auto dealership and Auto Service Center use in addition to uh a non-residential development over one acre within 300 ft of residential zoning uh the original plans included a uh a reduction to 51,8 40 ft uh building a car wash tunnel and renovating the full exterior portion of the building uh concurrent with that application and approved on April 20th of 2022 was also a ma major deviation to exceed the 100,000 lumens per acre side lighting by less than 50% uh these are some of the approved conditions from that uh conditional use permit that are of substance tonight uh first was just simply to comply with all the applicable city codes plans reports materials as submitted and second was that noise uh that sound study uh that was required so our request is to amend condition one with these new plans and for the uh the RV dealership uh and no longer build the car wash nor renovate the building's exterior additionally we originally asked to dismiss uh condition 7 because uh we didn't find it the noise impacts to be far less substantial compared to an uh an auto dealership which would have direct access uh to bays and also have a more extensive uh uh work being done to the cars um now with the plans of using the current building all of the work will be done on the interior portion of the building as I'll show shortly so this is just a front of uh the dealership as it would be and then here we can see the location of the service shops one is in the direct center of the building and the other is on the uh East Side uh if we're looking at this picture uh kitsy is on the bottom portion um of this building uh so parking wise uh there is a reduction of about almost 40 spaces but as we can see this is largely inventory parking that we're taking away from in fact employee parking will be staying the same in service parking we'll see uh an addition to five spaces and customer parking we see an addition to 33 spaces here is a view of the uh Landscaping at the site um in compliance with uh Reno Landscaping standards and then as Miss Taylor mentioned uh we have worked with staff to uh with this proposed condition seven uh whereby it would not be dismissed but it would be amended so that way uh all work has to be done within those indoor uh service areas and then if anything were to change in the future uh requiring for auto use uh then it would require a sound study thank you thank you as well appreciate it we now go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner rorer please commissioner Ray are you there do we loser commissioner Ray you might be on mute I'm sorry I was having trouble with the mute I no questions oh your disclosures sorry if I missed that oh a apologies no disclosures okay commissioner B please uh familiar with the site commission only disclosure is uh familiar with the site and I want one so commissioner Billo have a familiar with the site commissioner Dracula is familiar with the site great Cali do we have any requests to speak forms Zoom voicemails uh no request to speak forms no voicemails or corresponden forceed for this item great thank you anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we'll close public comment and open it up to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or the applicant commissioner Villa please uh thank you uh chair I do have a question for the applicant hi welcome so the S so you you'd like to make a well not you but the applicant would like to modify the sound uh study it it says the required so the condition is for a sound study and what you guys are asking is that there not be a sound study and that they're not be any condition related to sound that was our original request was uh to not have a sound study at at all given the difference between all the work will be interior in the building and we're not using the amount of tools and uh we don't expect that sound to be an impact to the local area um so but then with this proposed uh or recommended condition 7 uh as long as that work would be done internally it would not be required until um expanding the services Bas essentially okay so that the sound study would not be required not the the restriction on sound is that so are you saying we would still have to be in compliance with uh noise standards uh but that would be the standard we would apply to oh okay but the study would apply later on when you guys had expand when your services were expanded if the services expand or if for some reason the applicant uh which they won't be doing if work was being done outside of the indoor areas if if any work is done outside the those areas then it would have to be um a sound it would require a sound study okay okay so the then the city staff would be made aware of that and then they would I mean I'm trying to think of how the enforcement would work so the so I believe if we were if the applicant were expanding its use if it opened up another another service Bay directly to the outdoor area that would be outside of this approval so then you guys okay I got it okay so then you guys would have to come back correct I see or if there would stay a change in use with a sound study we need to conduct a sound study yes okay and then if there was a change in use you guys would also correct have to come back okay uh thank you I think that's it Mike did you have something you need to add sure uh Mike really plan manager just to provide some clarification um they wouldn't have to come back before this body staff would catch any changes for example if they expanded the service Bays they would come in we would catch that at building permit and if it changed to a different dealership we would catch that at business license so this will be noted in these conditions will be in our system and so we can enforce those if that should occur thanks Mike appreciate it commissioner berser please sure uh no questions just a remark the plot at the applicant and staff are working together on a on a revised uh condition number seven seems to work for folks now and in the future so great job it seems like a great project commissioner RoR Meier any questions no questions all right we can move into discussion or a motion if we'd like not no good for it I don't have anything to say and I don't think there's any great I guess I can make the mo uh based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the uh the modification of LDC 21- 000071 subject to the revised conditions listed in the STA staff report commissioner rera second we have a motion and a second but we need to add in case number lc24 d55 mik caught me there but we have a motion and a second any further discussion all in favor I commissioner Munos which which case number did you add in I thought I did uh the one we're on now LDC 24- z55 that's correct so this is a new case number to amend a previously approved case number for the the LDC 0071 correct okay that's where I was getting confused yes okay so we have five yay votes it passes me anly thank you thank you heather good job yeah all right we're going to move on to item four 5.4 case number lc24 d54 Riverpoint at ID wild looks like we'll get a presentation let's do it all right uh good evening planning Commissioners Jeff Foster associate planner for the record bringing you tonight uh the River Point at Idol wild project LDC 24-54 and let's not forget to add that to the motion at the end uh okay so the project uh is approximately a 5.59 Acre Site uh south of the trucky River South of Fourth Street in between Chrissy Colin Park and Idol wild park in the yellow area there it was uh it's currently vacant it was previously developed with approximately 150 bed nursing home that was demolished in the late 1990s several development projects have been proposed and approved on the site uh specifically in June 2008 uh the Planning Commission approved a tenative map and a special use permit for 93 Town Homes prior to that in August of 2005 the Planning Commission approved a tenative map and special use permit for 75 Town Homes and both of those approvals have expired uh more recently about a little over two years ago in February of 2022 uh the Planning Commission approved a tenative map and conditional use permit for 120 residential Condominiums and 92 non-residential condominiums for detached garages that approval is still valid um and would be replaced by the requested entitlement oh uh uh the the current request is a tentative map to establish a 57 lot single family attached town home subdivision and Associated common areas and that's also a conditional use permit for more than 20 units in the mf30 zone note that uh that request would normally be a minor conditional use permit which is an administrative staff level review however because there's also a tenative map um it was upgraded to a full conditional use permit so that it could be reviewed concurrently and decided upon by your body there so uh the key issues um are project design and compatibility with surrounding land uses uh specifically the surrounding land uses to the North West and East are Condominiums and across Idle Wild Park sorry Idle Wild drive to the South you'll find single family residences the zoning district is multif family residential 30 units per acre uh which is of course primarily intended to accommodate multif family however some secondary use Es are town homes and single family residential uses the master plan is multif family neighborhood and here are a bunch of policies that are supportive of the proposed application regarding the project design the gross density is approximately 10.2 units per acre um if you were to utilize the theoretical 30 units per acre Allowed by the mf30 zone that would yield a theoretical maximum of 167 units so the proposed 57 units is is substantially below uh the theoretical maximum those 57 units would require 114 parking spaces um and that's two per unit uh however they are proposing 246 parking spaces which is two garage spaces two uh driveway spaces per unit and then 18 additional guest parking spaces uh you can see that it does also have a private Street um along with a detention Basin and a privately owned on-site sewer lift station which is addressed in condition number nine um regarding the units themselves there are 57 twostory town homes in three or seven unit buildings that range from approximately 1724 s ft to1 1899 squ ft with three or four bedrooms and a two-car garage all of these units will be sprinklered um and the conceptual elevations that you can see to the left um having been reviewed by sta they generally meet wall articulation and ground level interest requirements the last slide on Project design uh the project includes approximately 2.2 Acres of common area that will be landscaped and include trails and benches sidewalks and the aformentioned detention Basin uh the Landscaping landscaped common areas in front of and alongside the each of those units will be maintained by the HOA along with the private Street and that's reflected in condition number six um and the development is proposed to be separated from the condom Condominiums oh wait that'll I'll touch on that later um the Landscaping exceeds the minimum landscaped area and there is great sidewalk connectivity the entire Frontage along Idle Wild drive has a sidewalk which will likely be replaced during the building permit process uh because it's uh deteriorating however um in addition to the sidewalk connectivity you can also see trails in the lower left and right corners that connect to the sidewalk which then of course extends out to the parks uh on both sides vital wild drive and other areas uh other uh parks and and public area areas in that area Okay so compatibility with surrounding land uses the two story Town Homes uh provide an appropriate transition from the pictured three-story condos to the Northeast and West uh as a buffer in between those and the single family residential uses to the South um the development is proposed to be separated by the from those condominiums by a minimum 20ft private rear yard landscape buffer and a six- foot screen fence to help mitigate potential impacts um and those are pictured in on the left there uh the project is expected to have a minimal traffic impact and all required parking is on site as I mentioned earlier and due to the residential adjacency uh staff is recommending condition number seven to address allowable dat days and hours of construction here are the recommended tenative map findings uh you can see the analysis on the screen uh staff can make all recommended findings similar for the conditional use permit a staff can make all recommended findings for that uh entitlements as well and here's the recommended motion uh and I'm available for questions thank you jefff appreciate it you bet looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicants representative I was going to say did you take did you take the control uh members of the commission Chris Baker manhard Consulting here on behalf of the applicant um Jeff kind of stole my thunder he uh he did a very thorough presentation I thank him for that um I'll just kind of skip through a couple things as not to be redundant uh as mentioned project location um existing master plan multif family existing zoning mf30 and again we're not switching either of those uh long history here like Jeff alluded to um it's really been undeveloped since the 90s uh the important thing is there is a current approval in place for 120 residential condom Condominiums um I think the majority of this board actually was was in place at the time of this approval uh and the request in front of you today is for 57 single family attached units and that same conditional use permit that was uh approved with the uh 2022 application request uh the only thing I'm going to add is just kind of the current approval versus the current requ Quest um again it is an mf30 site um as you see there in the table um Jeff kind of went through the the project details I don't know that I need to to go through it and kind of you know belabor those points but the the current approval as you see the the total area is the same the 5.59 Acres um allowable units is that 167 that Jeff mentioned um the current approval does have the 120 dwelling units uh the building height is what's kind of really important here uh nearly 45 ft so the previous approval as a three-story condominium um again the the max density is 30 dwelling units to the acre um the proposed density of the current approval was was over 21 dwelling units to the acre and that open space obviously was a little bit less so when you compare that to what we're bringing forward to today uh we're going from three stories to two stories uh we're we're cutting the uh allowable units by more than half um which subsequently the density gets cut by more than half uh and then consequent you end up with more open space so um we've had a lot of correspondence with us surrounding HOAs uh the neighborhood Advisory Board we did the application that that was the current approval um overall everyone's really pleased um again this is the definition of true infill um it's got a long history uh there's a bunch of infrastructure in the ground that needs to be uh kind of removed and replaced um and again overall uh we agree with staff's recommendation for approval and we're here to to uh answer any questions you may have thank you thank you Chris appreciate it sure go to Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Basera please sure uh I'm familiar with the site run by it quite often spoke with the applicants representative um and reviewed material commission Munos please commission mun familiar with the site I spoke briefly with the applicat representative and I was a yes vote on the original project in 2022 commissioner commissioner villan waya I am familiar with the site I was here for the presentation in 2022 and I don't remember how I voted but I believe I was a yes um thanks commissioner R me um familiar with the site and no other disclosures commissioner dracul familiar with the site read and received emails spoke briefly with the applicants representative also present for this original approval and I was also a yes all right with that said we'll open up for public comment I do have a request to speak form looks like Michael gay would like to make a statement in favor Michael state your name for the record you have three minutes all right for the record name is Michael gay uh good evening members of the Reno Planning Commission uh I'm here to address concerns regarding the proposed Riverpoint development um and its impact on the community particular items of traffic and safety um I want to acknowledge the positives of adding additional uh housing to the area it is undeniably that we need more housing um options and accommodations for our community to grow um projects like the River Point uh Community can bring significant benefits including economic growth and uh increased diversity in the community however I'm deeply concerned about the current speed of traffic and the additional traffic that this development uh will bring the stretch between swoke middle school and Idol wild park uh which the development is in the middle of um is already problematic um as it stands this area of is the only area of California Avenue and Ida wild that doesn't have any traffic calming um measures um um to mitigate these concerns I propose the installation of speed bumps along this Corridor implementing these traffic calming measures would significantly reduce the speeding making our streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists um it would also help to manage the increased traffic flow from the Riverpoint development um that it will bring ensuring that our community remains safe and livable I just urge the Planning Commission to consider these measures as a necessary completement of the River Point development um by doing so we can balance the need for new housing with the uh need for maintaining a safe and quality life for our current residents that's all thank you thank you so much Michael appreciate it any voicemails people on Zoom we did receive correspondence for the it this item that has been forwarded to the Planning Commission and has been entered into the record we do have two voicemails to play as well please hi my name is Jillian Anderson and I'm calling in regards to case number LBC 24-54 project name River Point at Ida wild and I'm just calling to ask the council to consider not allowing it to go through there's already so much traffic that happens on Idol wild it's a pretty mean public thoroughfare with people coming through to access either Idol wild park or Christy Colin Park um we live in that neighborhood and um I believe that even 57 more units would would make a really big difference and a negative impact on the neighborhood and as well as um just like access point so as far as um as far as moving forward with a project we would ask that it not being it not be allowed to move forward a better use of that land would be either an extension of Idol wild park or just keeping it Wildland allowing for wildlife to use it um there's been many planning projects that have been planned there that have not been able to go through because if it's on like what appears to be a sinkhole meaning that it like there's a potential for causing sewage problems the sewage would have to be piped uphill and so um I just would like it on record that um I would be against allowing for this project Riverpoint at Ida wild to go through at this time thank you hello my name is Scott Gooden I'm calling about case number L DC 24-54 project named River Point at Idol wild I'd like to leave a comment in support of keeping the land open and not allowing development at this time Idle Wild drive that this uh subdivision would be on is already a busy thare and people speed through this straightaway where this area is located um it would add more traffic to the area and it would also cut down on habitat for wildlife again would like to support leaving this space open perhaps turning it into a park or open space or Urban preserve um but I do not support to Brothers building River Point at Idol wild at this location due to the impact of on wildlife and the impact on the pressure for the surrounding neighborhood there are already two um multifam apartment and condo complexes that are surround this area and we seal the pressure of that already having an additional 50 plus units would add far more pressure than the road was designed to use or can handle uh safely thank you all right that's it for the voicemails and we don't have any hands raised on zoom and I don't have any more requests to speak forms thank you anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item I'm so sorry we do have a hand rais on Zoom now oh okay let him in hi can you hear me yes we can go ahead and state your name and you'll have three minutes hi my name is Regan Fitzpatrick and I had submitted a public comment and I just wanted to make sure that it was going to be reviewed by all parties that will be making this decision it was submitted to the record okay thank you very much I appreciate it you're welcome all right good over there all right anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we'll close public comment and go to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or the applicant commissioner Moon knows please thank you uh I I don't have any questions uh I'm familiar with the project and what's going on here and I just want to make it clear up for the record that if we were to do uh to vote this down today they can still the the the property owners can still move forward with a project that is 110 more units than they're proposing today so uh for me I'm kind of on the fence here because uh we do need more housing and 110 unit decrease is huge absolutely huge but for everybody with concerns about traffic about uh everything that's going into this project by us not voting yes on this project from what they're stating already is way way worse than what they're getting if we do approve this so I just want that on the record sure I I remember this original application and definitely satisfied with the amount of units we were going to see which I know some of us like to see that in the appropriate places but also it was a balancing act with how much it may impact the neighbors and the traffic and that I know that road well it's not wide and I get that um so I'm I'm kind of with you here and ultimately if we're seeing a a better product for the Neighbors still putting units up in infill um yes it would be nice to see more units but there's consequences to that um also you have to understand sometimes with my realtor eyes maybe that product wasn't best fit for the market in general and maybe this is a better product for Southwest Reno which does kind of come off a little bit like a more attractive product and you kind of a longer term aesthetic so it's my thoughts as well so we didn't mean to switch into discussion too fast but wanted to piggy back you there commissioner berser sure thanks for that context chair and uh commissioner munus I do have a question maybe for Mr Baker uh yeah let's let's do it nothing too hard just just maybe added context to what my fellow Commissioners here were talking about is what's different about it now as opposed to before like are we going to maybe see another request a year from now revising this one yet again or um um is this one kind of set up for Success this time around uh Chris Baker bhard Consulting uh here on behalf of the applicant for the record um it it's it's different than everything today right so um there was obviously 150 unit um facility um a nursing facility in the 90s everything since has been 90 plus units high density more in line with the mf30 designation um as as the chair indicated with that you get some of the increase in negative impact um and in the product that is currently approved on there 120 units again it's it is a for sale product but it it does resemble from the street view you know um it would resemble more of an apartment complex um so what this does is not only does it decrease the the overall density but it does provide that true transition from the single family to the South to the multif family to the north um and and frankly I think it Blends a little bit more with the community long term um not just decreasing impacts but uh I I think this is suited more for Success um mainly because it's different than anything that's been proposed since the 90s okay thanks Mr Baker do have one followup but for Jeff if I may and just as we were right on that so 63 units is our shift yeah hey Jeff um this is more about the the traffic and just the the public comment we received is this the platform or Channel by which the public make requests or or um share their concerns about not just the traffic but uh having us consider uh speed bumps or calming traffic uh Solutions or or is there another solution that they should take because I want to make sure that folks have the right information if it's not us it's another platform or Avenue for them to take sure Jeff Foster associate planner for the record thank you for the question um so the um if if there is a speeding issue um and I'm can't discount that don't live there and I you know don't know for sure whether or not there is um but that would be a a larger City issue to be looked at um Mike was here Mike Michelle but uh um certainly I will convey that um moving forward to Mike and Public Works uh to be looking at down the road when the building permit stage comes around uh to be you know to to see if the if there is a an identified issue out there um that we should be looking at from a broader perspective irrespective of this project right um and so I will certainly bring that forward to them to to to take a look at that my understanding is that that roadway is designed for way more traffic than is currently us utilizing it mhm doesn't mean that there isn't speeding going on but in terms of a capacity um framework the it's it's it's certainly has more than ample capacity to accommodate this project also recognizing of course as we've heard earlier this project is much is a significantly reduced scale um in comparison with what has already been approved um and so if anything that the impact will be reduced correct in terms of traffic and whatnot on on that road Network there so again um I I will certainly uh I I heard those comments uh both in the voicemails um and in the uh written comments that have been submitted and we will um bring that forward this specific project um did not generate or does not generate enough traffic to uh require a full traffic entry and access study or a full-blown traffic report um and so uh we didn't have the opportunity through this project to you know kind of dive deeper into those issues um because of the magnitude of the project being relatively minimal um so does that help out there yeah it absolutely does it's not just for I think my edification but maybe for the public so they have a way to move forward on those concerns uh and what to anticipate in the future be because I do agree this project is underc capacity as far as is uh anticipated traffic it seems like a a good project this time around um and I do agree with you that this is a larger issue um whether whether it's a few cars or thousands of cars um I think my personal experience in general and I've grew up here in Reno my whole life is that traffic is bananas these days like wherever you go right it could be one car that's speeding and that's all it takes to cause issues so I appreciate you taking this up sure a little later of course commission V away please thanks yeah stay up there I'm actually just I did want an answer where is it that the public should uh Lodge any concerns that they have like is there um a form or is there do they need to file a complaint somewhere or where do they go for that um they could certainly contact Public Works directly um however in the context of this particular project they can certainly uh you know continue to email me um through uh as the Planner on the project and I can forward that to uh the engineer on the project as well as Public Works who already reviewed the project but maybe not in the context of adding speed speed bumps to the to the street there so yeah they can continue to email me Andor contact Public Works directly okay sounds good right that would save them from having to I mean because speeding that is kind of a Law Enforcement issue but they they that's not where they should they should Lodge any complaints right I mean certainly speeding as well they could contact RPD but in in terms of kind of addressing more of a on a holistic in a holistic way if if this is a identified speed area um Public Works could look at measures that might mitigate those I also I think it's worth pointing out that um sometimes there are unintended consequences and when you uh consider adding speed uh humps and things that then has the potential to have ramifications in terms of Emergency Response times and things like that so it's kind of a it's not just a one-size fits-all solution uh RFD Reno fire needs to look at it in the context of you know access and whatnot too so but that combination of Public Works and RFD and whatnot could all look at that um you know if it's brought to them and and and addressed as a as a concern okay and then I would just also point out for the public if they do continue to have concerns they can continue to show up to these meetings and I think if you do that enough eventually you're going to get the attention of of some people so thank you commissioner rorer didn't want you to think we forgot about you no um no questions for the applicant okay great commissioner Munos please yeah one last thing uh to also report these things you can call Reno direct so if you get on Reno uh just Google Reno direct um and that'll take you to the city website they'll give you some phone numbers and stuff to address stuff like this thank you if there's no other questions we can move into discussion or entertain a motion commissioner villanua I can make a motion let me do the case number first that's y I was uh commissioner villanua I uh like to provide this motion for LDC 24-54 uh based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the tenative map and conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report all right we have a motion commissioner mun I second Motion in a second any further discussion all right we'll go to a vote all in favor I I all right motion passes 5- Z good luck get that thing going I've lived around that my whole life build there all right close item 5.4 move to item six trucky Meadows Regional planning liaison report who's my soul happy to give a quick please do commissioner B yeah commissioner verer um see always a lively report uh a few things discussed but where where it relates to Reno is that we did discuss the White Lake Parkway um that came before us not too long ago and it was uh supported or passed there as well so just want to report back on that and that's it our next meeting is next week at city of Sparks council chambers because of the Reno Rodeo cool thank you all right moving on to item seven staff announcements uh just a couple quick announcements um just to fill you in the Riverside specific plan District that you heard uh believe it was back in the end of May that was approved by council at their last meeting as was the Valley View Estates planned unit development which you heard quite a while back the applicate then um made some additional changes based on Council input and then that when that went back that was ultimately approved um your last meeting the Envy energy conditional use permit um we have been told by Envy energy that they do plan to file an appeal to amend the condition as you remember there was a condition that was in dispute between staff and mvy energy uh they do plan to appeal that to city council although they have not formally filed one yet but we believe that will be coming in tomorrow based on a meeting we had with them today that's all I have great thank you Adam 8 commissioner suggestions for for future agenda items seeing and hearing none we'll move to item nine public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment Cali Heather anything anything over there none for this item all right anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this in general public comment yeah this is commissioner syvia oh are we done with the public or can I I was just going to close it oh perfect but did you want to chime in during public comment oh sure yeah not there I don't it's it's nothing like that I'm joking I'm joking good go ahead if you want oh no I just I wasn't sure if it's uh Arthur mun's commissioner mun's last meeting or or not and if if it is or if we are getting looking into new Commissioners I was just going to encourage the public if they're listening out there to submit applications uh for any open seats thank you your three minutes are up I'm just joking all right thank you commissioner appreciate it uh closing public comment and move to item 10 I guess do you want to answer her question is this commissioner is this your last meeting uh I spoke to uh council member Ebert and they have some people they're speaking to but nobody's been chosen in yet yeah so she's asked me if I could stay on for another meeting or two until they finalize that so you don't get rid of me yet so well no one can choose anyone until it goes through the to be appointed yeah she she she will appoint them and they get um voted by the city council so yeah so we're not there yet it is in the works though so you're stuck with me for a couple more meetings excellent all right see nothing Els I'll take a motion for adjournment so moved all right thank youall have a good night