e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay we're just taking a brief intermission while we um fix the sound you can hear me I heard you on YouTube okay wait hang on okay it's fixed would you like to continue Miss Taylor thank you heather do you want me to start over or no right where you left off good it's not on here okay as I was saying say the master plan designation for this site is Suburban mixed use which is which is consistent with the overall area listed on the screen are a few master plan policies that are supported by this project here you can see an aerial view of the site which is highlighted in yellow in the center uh to the West is the child care center that I mentioned earlier above that is Moana Nursery to the north along Moana Lane are a few commercial centers these centers have a variety of uses including restaurants hair salons dry cleaners a veterinary hospital and Retail businesses to the east and south are professional office complexes the nearest residential use is on the bottom right hand side of this image the distance from the convenience store to the Western property line is over 300 ft and it is not anticipated that this request will be detrimental to any of the residential zoning districts in the area staff received public comment with concerns regarding safety and safety of the site and surrounding area during the extended hours if this request were to be approved to relieve these concerns staff is proposing conditions to ensure the safety and security of employees and customers of the site during the overnight hours condition number six requires that the back door is locked between 11: p.m. and 6:00 a.m. condition number seven requires that the existing security cameras are in good working order and are continuously running and maintained conditions number 8 9 10 and 11 require additional security measures based on crime prevention through environmental design standards these include a height marker on the exit door an indicator on the door that alerts customers and employees of when another Patron enters exits sign stating the premise is under video surveillance and placing a limit on the amount of window area that may be covered by signs or displays these additional conditions will further promote Public Safety during the extended hours of operation on the screen here are the required findings for a conditional use permit staff believes all findings can be met and recommends approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report here here's the recomend recommended motion and I'm available for questions thank you hea appreciate it now I'll get a presentation from the applicants representative uh good evening uh Derrick Wilson on behalf of the uh property owner um Heather has done a very thorough job of reviewing this and presenting it so I'll do my best to not waste anyone's time and repeat anything um important elements are uh this is an easy way to to add some um additional uh services to the neighborhood in a very low impact way uh so no new construction required no changes to the site layout it's already a modern good-looking site um one comment about uh that that residential zoning That Daycare Center um the site has never been residential it it was built 30 almost 30 years ago um as a as a commercial operation so it's a commercial building commercial construction it's got a parking lot out front basically zero chance that this is ever going to become a house U so I I don't think that residential impacts are an issue um other than that uh I think uh you've been given a good picture of it uh and I can wrap things up uh just by saying that the owner um has experience with this kind of business they run a clean operation they know what they're doing and and I expect they'll do the same with this site thanks very much thank you dere appreciate it all right we now go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner RoR Meer please patron of the site thank you familiar with the site commissioner baser commissioner Armstrong I'm familiar with the site commissioner velto please commissioner Munoz then why we wait V commissioner mun no disclosures commissioner VTO you there oh he's not there okay commissioner draulic I am familiar with the site we'll try to get oh that commissioner velto commissioner velto if you can give us your disclosures if you're good buddy uh no disclosures all right right on okay we'll now go into public comment Michelle any requests to speak forms I did not receive any request to speak forms for this item we did receive correspondence and NAB comments for this item those were forwarded to the Planning Commission and have been entered into the record um we did not receive any voicemails or um uh request to speak via Zoom all right thank you very much 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 of Staff or the applicant commissioner B please sure uh not much of a question as much as just a uh great job Heather for uh taking in the community feedback I think there was a comment from the adjacent business about Safety and Security it seems like that concern is perhaps addressed with the uh conditions so good job I have no issues commissioner Dracula I just have a question for staff so just uh two things so condition number five so help me out was this um business running or allowing o ing gas purchase at 2: in the morning I can't confirm it but I is my understanding maybe maybe I can ask Derek and you can stay up there because I have one for that yeah thanks um so the site recently changed hands uh I'm representing a new owner okay um what happened in the past we don't know but we're here to comply okay and and Heather my question on condition number five I I guess I'm assuming it's those little tiny screens next to the pump is there a reason we don't want those on I just I'm assuming with no res itial just the just on the off chance that it could be an issue we were trying to figure out any way possible to mitigate any any issues related to noise and so we thought that was a good way okay yeah because I've seen those at you know late at night and I don't see those as a hindrance in any way a personal opinion um I guess question for Derek does the applicant want those to be running does it help them as a business uh they like them we'd be happy if if it was agreeable that they could run um we thought that condition was a little restrictive but we weren't willing to jeopardize a hearing over it um but if if the commission saw fit to remove it we would agree with that okay all right and that was just my thought I I'll I'll let the Commissioners stew on that a little bit um does anybody have any other questions for staff or the applicant commissioner RTO or commissioner Munoz no questions here yeah commission M no questions okay well if we want to entertain a motion or move into discussion um I for one would like to see condition five gone just because I I know what those are for and that helps generate business um and I see a good business I visited this business 100 times in my life and I I don't see any problem with those screens but also looks like they wouldn't hold it up so just my opinion commissioner dra this is uh commissioner VTO I I have an agreement with you uh on that uh if you'd like to remove that condition I would support the motion okay thank you chair just just for clarity CH would you mind reading the condition or or yeah condition five no Amplified music or video advertising shall occur at the gas pumps or under the fuel canopy between 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. so I took that and I think Heather confirmed it's those little tiny small screens while you're pumping it's an advertisement I've never run a gas station but I'm assuming that generates business or is good for their business model in some way the syst is there um I don't see how the light or the noise would be a hindrance to anybody at you know 1: or 2 in the morning um so I'm just always a fan of helping small businesses and if this helps them and they would like it great if you guys don't agree I understand too no I I I think that's uh great feedback and something uh to think about I I would love some more insight from Heather like what was the reasoning behind that what what like I said there was just a concern that noise from the fuel canopy might be a problem so we are just trying to get ahead of the game and stay on top of any future enforcement issues um by putting in that condition and restricting the noise at the fuel pumps themselves okay maybe happy medium or like Middle Ground would be like we do away with it and you know if it becomes a problem or something it's something that we can work back in or something um for the record Mike really planning manager I think the intent was that um for example a lot of gas stations now have much larger screens on the pumps than what this station has that can be fairly loud at night and when you have low ambient noise that would carry you know it's definitely within your purview to take that off but to to add it back in later is really not an option it's it would become a Code Enforcement issue if there if there was a problem commissioner roor or Armstrong any thoughts on it uh commissioner Armstrong I don't have any issues removing the condition just being familiar with the site um it it doesn't appear to be kind of like if you go to Maverick or maybe like a more Modern Gas Station they have like actual Amplified kind of surround sound type stuff but that doesn't seem to be the issue here so I would be comfortable removing the condition but um frankly I I'm good either way okay I mean I like as presented too okay I can support removing the condition I don't particularly see a need for screens at the gas pump but so be it okay well whoever wants to make a motion I would support a removal of condition five but would listen to a motion in the other direction uh this is commissioner Bel I'll make a motion okay in the matter of case number LDC 24-48 basic on compliance the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report except that we are removing condition number five all right we have a first commissioner Armstrong I'll second have a motion in a second any further discussion please commissioner basser sure just one more question what what I'm not familiar with it because um I I'll kind of throw myself out there more on the EV side and so I've done the whole casting in a while but uh what what what is displayed or played on the on those screens is it advertisements is it Mt videos or yeah dance party yeah no uh usually promotions for the business specials they might be running um offers to you know join their membership club things like that yeah and do you find that to be like uh a form of uh revenue is it help Drive business is that um yeah I mean they believe in it yeah they they think it's worth having it so yeah they'd like to keep it absolutely okay yeah um I I think some customers find that that presence uh kind of welcoming maybe you know late at night if if there's no one around maybe I I can see some customers find that comforting to have some sort of activity there the okay do you know if the I think there was mentioned that there was another uh gasoline station uh up north Moana and do they have that too um there there isn't another gas station right in this immediate area there's a 24hour business further north that's a 71 got it yeah but they don't have gas okay and there's a gas station East on Moana ballpark I'm I don't think they have those got it I know what you're talking about all right so we have a motion and a second with the removal of the condition five see no further discussion we'll go to a vote all in favor I I I all right seeing none oppose motion passes unanimously good luck with your project thank you yes all right we'll move to item number 5.2 case number lc24 d45 Santa quy properties condition Amendment and it looks like we'll get a presentation from staff kick away Jeff thank you good evening Commissioners Jeff Foster associate planner for the record tonight uh bringing you a condition Amendment request for Sant quacy properties many of us are familiar with the Sant quy development but to recontextualize it the site is approximately 1164 Acres uh in ver south and east of I80 uh AED a map and special use permits um were approved or sorry reviewed by Council on appeal and approved back in March of 21 and the condition or the request tonight is to amend condition number 20 uh the key issue is Public Safety uh there have been fires in the area uh when there have been fires fire response has typically been a joint effort by the City of Reno trucky Meadows fire protection the US Forest Service BLM and sometimes other local jurisdictions there are multiple fire stations in the area the little uh table to the right City station number 11 is approximately a 9 Minute response time City station number 19 is approxim a 13-minute response time and trucky Meadows Fire Protection District number 40 has a 6-minute response time and that's important because there's an automatic Aid agreement where tmfpd station 40 or tmfpd in general would provide uh automatic Aid uh fire for fire situations in that area um it's also worth noting that land for a future permanent fire station was recently dedicated and accepted by the city on the south side of Boomtown Garson Road interchange so condition number 20 existing condition it's on the screen I'll read it real quickly prior to the issuance of a certificate of OCC occupancy for the 25th residents within the project the developer shall provide for the temporary use of an appropriately modified single family home or commercial building the residential station for purpose of housing a two-person Public Safety crew and collocated ambulance police fire Andor EMS equipment the residential station shall provide direct access to a collector or an arterial Road at a specific location to be mutually agreed upon by the developer and the city prior to approval of the first final map and shall be available for use until the city acquires or constructs a fire station with a six-minute response time to the project again remember I just said that that parcel was recently dedicated to the city for purposes of constructing a future fire station that's what that last portion is saying it's worth noting that this condition doesn't say anything about Staffing the station any guarantees any requirements it just says that the developer shall provide a home that will be used as a temporary residential fire station that's going to become important later so the applicant has requested an amendment to the condition prior to the issuance of the first certificate certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within the project the applicant shall contribute $300,000 to the city for a uh City of Reno for a fire truck so some context the content or sorry the intent of condition number 20 was to convert a house into to a temporary fire station with a two-man crew to respond to Medical calls not fire calls until a permanent station is built this type of station would typically have an ambulance or a medical vehicle not a fir TR um a new firet truck can range from anywhere between 200,000 to north of 2 million whereas a fire ambulance would cost approxim or would be less than 300,000 therefore the proposed 300,000 contribution is based on the cost for the city to purchase an ambulance to serve that temporary fire station it's worth noting also that there are several other fire related safety conditions in the approval for example number five uh has a 168 uh per door and per square foot Financial contribution towards that future fire station um which is also a condition that's on other approvals out there including uh Stan Lucas and Meridian 120 South uh vegetation management plan has already been approved by the state Forester fire Warden that's condition number six number seven requires a secondary emergency access that's currently in the building permit process and number 19 requires all homes out there to be sprinklered uh regardless of whether or not the fire station is built or when uh the fire station is built so more context the city no longer requires uh sorry no longer desires that temporary fire station and that's primarily because of budgeting and Staffing concerns uh the fire chief will speak to that later um if you would like but in essence this condition was never vetted it was never uh analyzed in terms of cost to the city for the ongoing Staffing and um effectively it just doesn't make sense and so the applicant would like uh the entire condition struck with the re remainder of the language down below prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within the project applicant shall contribute 300,000 to the city to help pay for a new fir truck um the mended findings for a typical ten map in cup the only ones that are relevant uh to what we're analyzing tonight are the availability of public services and whether or not the request would be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare staff feels that uh with all of the existing conditions out there in terms of the existing fire stations the automatic Aid agreement um the future public facility site uh the fact that the homes will be sprinkler the vegetation management plan etc etc etc that those findings can be made uh it's also important to note that uh the Planning Commission is not making the decision tonight you're making a recommendation to city council uh so here's the recommended motion and I'm available for questions thank you Jeff appreciate it looks like we'll get a presentation from the Angela Mrs fous please good evening for the record Angela fous assistant director for development services I am wearing the hat today of the applicant as the City of Reno uh fire chief Cochran and I here are representing Reno together so just to clarify this is not the developer requesting this change they will do whatever we ask them to do this is the City of Reno Fire Department requesting this change so I'm going to give you a little bit of history on the Morton and Garson overlay there is a lot of history related to lawsuits um the vision for this whole area and that includes fire safety for this whole area so I'm going to tell you a little bit about that and then tell you why specifically the fire department is asking to remove this condition um this this this plan everything in yellow is within the boundaries of what we call the Mortenson Garson overlay District or the mg is as a lot of you have heard this called um this goes back more than 20 20 years so back in 2001 there was a big lawsuit and it was between weo Reno and waso try Meadows Regional planning the outcome of that was basically what we have today so there was a settlement agreement that then expired and translated into what we now have in our zoning code called the mortson Garson overlay District most of these areas that you normally see with like these big planned communities are planned unit developments this is not a planned unit development this is very much uh peac Mill different developments and again those peace Mill developments are because of 20 plus years of a lawsuit and a settlement agreement so just so you understand everything in yellow is the area that was once visioned and visioned for development so let's start with what is also part of those requirements a School site as part of again this is a zoning code it's an overlay in the zoning code within planning Area 3 which is with in the Sant quy area they have to dedicate land for a future School site there's also a requirement to dedicate land for a future fire station this has been planned for 20 plus years this is where the fire station will go the good news is that that land is free so as part of the development that's uh been approved out here they to dedicate three acres to the City of Reno the city now owns that land and whenever the city is ready they will build a permanent fire station other things that again you we don't need to talk about but just so you understand the full picture there's a plan for Parks there's a plan for a trail system again everything in yellow is part of that bigger plan um there's a plan for Hillside development and Ridgeline protection there's a plan for Wildland interface and again because this area is um in an area that's that's hasn't been developed for 20 plus years all of this has been planned for for 20 plus years so we really hadn't seen any development come forward even though again this has been a a planed Vision since 2001 it was back in 2019 So within the last 5 years that we started kind of seeing these developments move forward the first one was this what we call Meridian 120 North most of that's built you you've seen it if you drive on I80 it's on the east side um it's it's houses the next one was Meridian 12 South that was also approved it has not started construction they haven't moved forward they were in a lawsuit for about 3 years those lawsuits have been resolved the next one was Stan Lucas that's a a pretty significant one over 600 homes um also went through an extensive lawsuit and it turns out um that project is approved and they are moving forward nothing's been built yet a lot of Industrial Development has now been under construction out there again all of that was part of the bigger Vision so where we're at today right the Santa quy it's over 1,200 units planned with that again they have to show that there's fire protection and they have to show that there's a school and parks and trails so let's talk about fire the planned station not built because there's no homes out there yet is in red the somerset station that's existing that's a fourman crew is in blue the good news is that yellow development next door Stan Lucas is required to provide access through their site to that Somerset fire fire station and then of course the fire station in green is that it's a trucky Meadows fire station that's the one that's about a six-minute drive to the site so when Santa was approved there were a number of conditions that were added specific to address fire that was a big topic when this project came forward it was a big topic when Meridian came forward and a big topic when Stan Lucas came forward this has been a huge topic every development that's come forward within this overlay District so specific specifically for Santa we added a fire fee we're calling this a fire contribution because we don't technically have the right to require somebody to pay the city to build a future fire station but it's a contribution and they've agreed to it so for every house that comes forward they're going to contribute $168 the the city will take that money put it in account eventually have enough money to build a fire station or at least help to contribute to build that fire station that's the permanent one we also have that vegetative management plan again it's reviewed by Reno and the state and then we have a secondary fire access one of the big big um discussions with this project is there's only one way in and one way out that's today there's only one way in and one way out a lot of the waso County residents had expressed concerns if there's a fire there's all these new people living out here how is everyone getting get in and out so that condition was modified during the council meeting initially it was that that secondary fire access had to be constructed by a certain number of units that was changed Council said let's make sure they have that secondary fire access right two ways in and two ways out before house number one is built so that was addressed by city council when this went to council another requirement is fire sprinklers well yes we require fire sprinklers anytime you're out of our fire response time meaning the house has to be constructed and have fire sprinklers in the house we went a step further and we said regardless of when a fire station is constructed you will still have to put fire sprinklers in in every single house in this development that's not code that's above and beyond code we don't normally do that but Council again heard the concerns from the neighbors and said let's address those fire concerns so number 20 is the one that we here tonight about number 20 essentially says that the developer when they get to the 25th house will take a house and basically donate it to the city on a temporary basis um they're going to make the garage wider and and deeper and taller they're going to put in some generators and then the City of Reno will be able to man that as a two-man crew a Twan crew does not provide fire service just to be clear that was very much stated at the at the public hearing they only provide emergency medical service so if there's a fire next door they do not show up if there's a 911 call for somebody's having a heart attack somebody slipped and fell they would show up now keep in mind too remza is our city wide um operator of transporting people so Rema um on the record again this was four years ago provided a letter saying yes this location is in their service territory and yes they are prepared to provide remza service when the houses are built so the challenge we have with this when this item went to city council this was not something that staff threw out as a recommendation it was not something that we had vetted with our fire department or our finance department was something that the council memb said let's do this to address some of the fire concerns so the challenge we have now is well it's great that they're going to give us a house that again we can use as a Twan crew how are we going to pay for it meaning how are we going to actually pay for an ambulance to be there how are we going to pay for a Twan crew to be there and we're not talking two people right this is a 247 Mann fire station which means you have to actually hire about seven or eight new people to man that station so just on a yearly basis for those seven to eight new staff members it's about $1.2 to$ 1.4 million that was not discussed that was not budgeted now let's talk about why let's talk about why that's a concern I want you to understand just kind of the history of of fire and funding one of the big complaints we hear from people is like you know I pay taxes that money goes to fire true it also goes to police and um you know fixing potholes and and planning staff and Engineering staff it goes to a number of different things there is not this endless pot of money we just have sitting in reserve for every new person that we have to hire we're usually negative people um we're also negative on in terms of how do we build fire stations there is zero pot of money to build any new fire station we do not have the means as a city and we haven't historically we don't build fire stations the last two fire stations that were built were paid for by development through big planned unit developments Summerset was built and again there was funding through that Master Plan Community uh the other one in South Meadows station 12 was built as part of the South Meadow's development so that's historically how we have built fire stations if you go back the last 10 years back in 2014 major changes in the economy obviously um you know our our taxes took a negative dive so we actually had less money coming in because everything was dropping in value we had to lay off 35 firefighters significant impact to the city Arena fire department with laying off 35 firefighters we also had to close down fire stations so the concern we have and again with this condition we never know what the economy is going to look like at any moment if the economy slows down we don't have the ability to hire new people how are we going to guarantee to anyone that we have the ability to hire seven to eight new firefighters to man this temporary crew um lots of concerns again big picture that was never vetted with Finance or the fire department and again historically over the last 10 years we lost a lot of fire fighters we Clos down stations incrementally as we've been building up more money and taking in more money and just again you've been a little bit smarter about how we we handle fire we've been able to open those three fire stations it was a slow incremental process they went from being closed down for years to having two man Crews and then a couple years later four man Crews so we've slowly been able to do that but there definitely is not this abundance of money for anything in terms of buildings we get the question well we have this land right we have three acres for a permanent fire station when are we going to build that as we talked about one of the conditions for this development is they actually have to pay for every house they build so every house that comes in for a building permit within all of the Morton and Garson overlay District has to pay $168 none of those projects are moving forward quickly this all takes time so really over the next 20 years we may see those 3,000 homes come to fruition uh we would like to build a fire station before 20 years but again there's not this pot of money to build it I mean let's look at just our needs right now our downtown Reno Fire Station it used to be where the ases baseball stadium is closed down because Asus was built they moved it to a temporary location on Fourth Street that that now is a picture of that temporary fire station that's a sprung tent that was never intended to be a full-time use but we are what 13 to 15 years later and that is still our fire station in downtown Reno mind you that is the fifth busiest station in the United States huge calls for service right like that is a a big big need that they serve not just Reno the entire nation is the fifth busiest big need and yet we have the them living in a sprung tent structure so it just goes to show we we would love to be able to build them something new but this is what we have to deal with um we have two structures or two two fire stations that are in these sprung tents so again this isn't the only one that we have a need to build them a new one and we have other needs across the city as well so just kind of in closing I just wanted to share um you know when we look at where we put fire stations and when we make them a Twan crew or foran crew a lot of thought goes into that and that's where fire chief Cochran can go into a lot more detail you know if we have a station that has 25 houses that they serve they may get what five calls a year that does not make sense to have seven to eight people managing that temporary fire station for 25 houses right um what we do know though is we do have other fire stations in the area and the benefit for this area which is also unique is it's part of an automatic Aid agreement now that is basically an agreement between trucky Meadows and fire and City of Reno fire so wherever there's a fire whoever's the closest will respond trucky meals fire has a station six minutes away from a fire perspective we have that backup coverage that we don't have through most of the city because we don't have that automatic Aid through most of the city so again from a protection perspective we feel that there's coverage from a fire perspective we also have remza like again once houses are built out here they'll be able to have more people out here they generally don't come to the Sant a because there's no there's no houses in the Santa era era area um you know and there's our tax structure changes you know that when the recession hit taxes fell and they have not bounced back when it comes to property taxes state law does not allow us to increase the taxes by more than I think 3% so we are still in a negative tax structure basically new development is paying for existing development and there's not much we as a City of Reno can do about that but we have to again live within our means um so again our request is to remove that condition because we as the City of Reno cannot guarantee that we will be able to man it so from that perspective we would still like to get something out of this that will benefit the fire department so we said equivalent to what would be an ambulance pay us $300 $300,000 we'll put that in our our fire fund and be able to use it to buy an ambulance all of our trucks are able to rotate to different locations again based on the need of the city and more of the the bigger picture um so again the city would still benefit from this the developer still has to pay us something for that on top of everything else they have to do and everything else they have to pay us this would be in place of a temporary fire station now you can you can keep that temporary fire station requirement again to toally optional but we may get nothing out of it those residents are depending on this they may get nothing out of it um so our concern is we would like to at least have some guarantee that we would get some benefit from this project that we can then use for fire protection so that's why we're proposing this chief of fire Cochran is here for any questions on the logistics and I was hoping I could just kind of walk through again the history of imot in this condition and we're both available if you have any questions thank you Ang appreciate it all right we'll kick it to the commissioner for disclosure commissioner Armstrong please commissioner Armstrong read and received emails commissioner rer read and received emails commissioner Basera same disclosures commissioner Munoz commissioner Muno same disclosures commissioner VTO commissioner VTO same commissioner dracul same disclosures okay we will now open it up to public comment we do have some requests to speak forms first up is Alice house Alice did you want to make your statement uh on the microphone did you want it added to the record I have your print out here great thank you and next up after that would be Adrien argeris Alice house for the record our family moved from Sparks to the Bell Ranch area Estates in ver over 35 years ago we raised our two sons in verd when we built our home in the the when we built our home the county and the developer IM promised improvements for the safety of the community they never fulfilled these commitments at the time my husband worked for trecky Meadows fire department our youngest son grew up and became a firefighter in elal County he was also a negotiator for the firefighters in his district our family background is rich in the firefighting and EMS profession my husband was one of the first t uh trucky Meadows Union Officers he worked very hard to negotiate a mutual Aid contract between trucky Meadows and the Reno fire department to get the closest fire department to the emergency first a very important fact to remember is EMS response time saves lives no Department can dispute the mutual Aid contract was not achieved then over 30 years later these two departments are still trying to get the same situation resolved seems as though this critical working relationship is feudal doomed to not never working out the existing contract is for automatic aid for fire emergency only it does not include EMS calls this is not close a station that runs on scene first it is jurisdiction runs first assesses emergency and then calls other departments to help as needed much much slower response time for this area the Reno the City of Reno requires a 6.5 minute response time to scene impossible for any Reno Fire Department Station to reach the verd area basically the breakdown is overfunding which which department will will receive payment for response and how much money over saving lives is not does not sit right with the need of the existing and future people of Verdi the majority of calls for a fire department is for EMS first in firefighters and EM EMS Personnel save lives period full stop Veri has no City of Reno Fire EMS station there is an influ in flux of thousands of people coming near in the near future the existing Community has worked very hard to at least ensure that there will be a temporary EMS house for medical emergencies this is only until the City of Reno can build equip and man A Des desperately needed permanent fire station what the Reno Fire Department chief is proposing will leave the residents present and future in grave Danger the temporary EMS house will save lives I implore you to leave this condition for the EM EMS house in place for the safety of our community thank you Alice appreciate it all right Adrien argeris wishes to make a statement in opposition and after Adrian will be Ken mcneel good evening Adrian Ardis I'd like this put on record um I want to point out that when the annexation happened a physical fiscal analysis was done and it was 16 million in tax dollars per year and that was 20 years ago that amount would be more today Plenty when these houses are online to have a temporary Twan fire station for Emergency Medical Services it also needs to be noted that in May of 2022 the city increased the 3,000 to close to 3,300 now condition 20 is about adequate EMS response to a massive development the condition was not added to benefit Reno fire it's for the benefit of the residents it was not added to be used as an ATM machine and cashed out for a new fire Tru to be used elsewhere the condition was added so that the finding of adequate Medical response could be made and a project approved the request to modify eliminates making the finding the staff report doesn't even address EMS even though condition 20 is about EMS Angela just touched on remza and the cost of Manning but they didn't address EMS the report only addresses fire and Angela pretty much just addressed fire you can't use conditions for fire to justify changing a condition for EMS the staff report says the area is an automatic Aid area and TM is required to respond to fire calls the report says automatic Aid provides additional protection well this is kind of deceptive because the condition is about EMS and automatic Aid is not for medical emergencies teim fire is not required to respond to EMS in order to approve this modification all the findings still have to be made the response time for EMS has not changed since March 2021 when the condition of approval was added so the finding for adequate EMS cannot be made today without the temporary fire station thank you thank you as well all right next up is Ken mcneel wishing to make a statement in opposition and after Ken will be D and Radcliffe well good evening uh Commissioners uh I want to take and I hate to do it to take opposition to some of the things you've been told tonight uh I think you were told if this station was put in initially it would only sered 25 houses but you saw the map there's West Meadows there's another development they're already built those developments would be served so I believe also the two casinos out there in the Verde ey area would be served there would be other houses and properties so it's not just 25 houses and I think we should all be honest myself included when we're telling you what is going to happen if this is eliminated um also so you haven't seen the Rema response times I hear they're terrible out in the ver ver ey area you know they they just take forever for Rema to get out there many times and also you they talk about station 19 station 19 is going to lose funding for half of their firefighters January 1st at least the the grant money is going to run out once that grant money runs out I don't know how they're going to fund those positions they haven't told you that and I think that that stuff is important and now I'll get to what I was going to talk about um there's really been very little documentation to show you that what they're saying the city Representatives is actually correct information um the proposed uh budget evidently there's going to be a hardship on the city budget but it says May so I think they should really explain why it either will or will not and I don't think that's happened tonight also if you look on page uh four of the staff report March 24th 2001 21 I'm sorry here we go I can't tell if can you see that no yeah you're good and Ken you have about 20 seconds my friend okay anyway this staff report uh indicates that there will be uh a general fund um positive uh contribution of this project of 16.2 million I think that was mentioned by one of the other speakers so there will be money available and If this money is not available we need to know why I'm sorry I'm out of time thank you K appreciate it all right next up is deian Radcliff wishing to make a statement in opposition did my time start I hope not not until you state your name but I hope so okay great good evening members of the Reno City Planning Commission and thank you for allowing me to speak please Lodge my comments onto the public record my name is Dean Radcliffe and I would like to briefly tell you about my background I am a Reno native and my dad served the Reno Fire Department as a captain my profession is in healthc care and I serve as the American Heart Association training center coordinator at my hospital I want to state that I am not representing the American Heart Association or my employer rather my comments or in my capacity as a private citizen in the 1980s the Reno Fire Department introduced a program to train their staff as EMTs so residents had the best quality Care data from Reno fire in 2023 indicates an excess of 30,000 medical calls this is 60% of their total call volume as you can see in the table the arena fire department strategic plan includes a goal to decrease total response time removal of this fire station will not support that goal the core value of it's on the right hand side the lives and well-being of the citizens visitors and department members are our highest priority how does removal of the fire station support this goal approval of this request is a no-brainer so let's talk about it as you can see the brain loses its oxygen stores within 20 seconds additionally there is a wealth of research supporting early high quality CPR and defibrillation statistics quoted vary from 7 to 10% decrease in survival for each minute that CPR is delayed you'll note that prognosis is also dependent not only on the start of CPR and defibrillation but the quality I'm going to demonstrate for everybody I come up a victim right are you okay are you okay take a pulse no breathing I'm going to start CPR right I would want to go ahead and say call 911 bring a defibrillator it arrives I'm going to turn it on and this is really what they those residents are losing you can't hear him but he says app head patient be chest plug in the connector we're going to do it patient he's analing don't touch the patient all clear don't touch the patient now my patient got defibrillated right I'm back into all of those things okay so so if you support removing this fire station do you also plan on driving to Sacramento Susanville Fallon when you have a medical emergency CU that's really what we're doing right these residents would be best served by leaving the fire station there and receiving the Medical Response that everybody deserves thank you so much for your time thank [Music] you I'm impressed Michelle uh any other request to speak forms come in or people on Zoom I did not receive any more request to speak forms of course respondence was received and forwarded to the Planning Commission no voicemails were received and no one on Zoom has raised their hand all right thank you anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and move to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or also staff commissioner verer absolutely um there's a lot to take in here um um and maybe just some questions for for my edification hopefully the bodies and hopefully the good folks here um maybe for Angela if if nothing changed tonight we kept condition 20 um would would we as a community receive a a fire station in the in the Verdi region tomorrow or next week or next year no again the temporary fire station is triggered by Toll development at the 25th home so when they come in and build house number 25 they then have to set aside a house that they have built that would then be used for the City of Reno on a temporary basis that does not mean we have the ability to man that station right and which home count are we on Z One right now there's zero houses in the Santa development there's zero homes okay just so for clarity as of now we're not taking anything necessarily way that's not there physically no and if if Santa never moves forward this temporary fire station never happens um but that that permanent station will still happen right that permanent station is part of the broader Mortenson Garson overlay District so that permanent station that will be manned with a fourman crew will eventually happen one day we have land again we don't have funding to build to build it um but we have money coming in as each house is built we'll collect money and again through taxes um and just to clarify too you know that 16.2 million in in um taxes was over the life of the project so assuming the project takes 20 years to be built 16 million will come in over the course of 20 million of of 20 years that we don't get that with day one and again it's not all going to fire okay and then just one or two more and I'll pleas step back um since we are in a financial P pinch it sounds like um would the $300,000 be earmarked for this ambulance or will tomorrow we have another emergency and that be moved somewhere else the way that the condition is written is that it would be earmarked for an ambulance and it's not necessarily for this fire station again we already know when this ter this permanent fire station will be built so we will be able to add another ambulance to the broader City of Reno car pool um you know ambulance pool okay perfect thank you so much and I'll just have one for chief Cochran if I may thank you so much Angela and chief Cochran thank you for being with us this evening absolutely just a general question what do you need from us for you and your crew to best serve the community today next week and into the foreseeable future as we navigate this uh situation we're in that's a great and timely question given the fact that it spent most of the day in the budget workshop with city council earlier um my priorities as fire chief have always been people apparatus and by that I mean fire engines fire trucks and then fire stations in that order because those are our biggest needs you heard from Angela and I'm basically reiterating what she said in different WS Staffing is a challenge I asked for 15 firefighters this round in the budget process and I got zero and that's because we are I wouldn't call it uh times are tight we' you know we're not laying off anybody we're not reducing service but that also demonstrates the need that I have if I had my wish we would have 50 more firefighters in this department right now and that's with zero homes being built out in the Verdi area because that's the need we have right now I can't get that currently um which just illustrates the difficulty the challenge that would be to get those seven or eight that Angela mentioned and that's accurate that's about 1.2$ 1.4 million in today's dollars to staff a station out in the verd ey area great thank you Chief and just to followup um if you were to receive the $300,000 would that be something that you were you'd be able to uh use to uh get a ambulance like right away or would that be sometime down the road again great and timely question um we have been very successful and I don't want to sound like we don't we are understaffed but we've done a good job of building our staffing we've gone from 211 line Personnel to 254 in the last number of years so we're growing we're getting there and I mentioned that second priority the apparatus we have a constant program where we are introducing new apparatus Now new Engines new ambulances new ladder trucks in fact we're doing um putting a new engine in service tomorrow at Station 2 we also I learned yesterday or maybe it was two days ago uh have the opportunity to acquire an ambulance that is ready to go kind of off the shelf um which is important kind of getting into the we but the supply chain issues everything that hit everybody during covid hit us as well so if I were to order a new ambulance today I could expect to see it in about 18 to 24 months but I have the opportunity to get one in July which I will be doing great thank you so much Chief absolutely y I'll yield my time commissioner velto or Muno didn't want to forget you virtual world there uh this is commissioner VTO I I appreciated commissioner B's questions and I think they they followed a lot of the questions I had so I don't really have anything to add to what he's already asked commissioner Muno anything buddy uh no commissioner Mo I'm in the same boote thank you okay seeing no other questions on the commission we can move into discussion or entertain a motion commissioner baser if you do um I can entertain a motion for discussion or we can go into discussion does it matter okay I'll just discussion I I um want to support the fire chief and his crew here for sure and I also hear the pleas of the community but I think there's two distin matters here there's how do we play poker to get the best deal here uh given the circumstances I think Angela mentioned uh you know if we do nothing we might get nothing um and so we're trying to get something out of this to to address the circumstances that we're in and separately but related but still separately we we need a fire station at some point uh sooner than later we are the fastest warm in city as folks know in in the country and I think in general my question is to the city maybe staff like what's our longterm plan there but I still think that's separate from the matter tonight in getting uh something not just for the the chief and his crew but for the community as well just some thoughts thank you all right if there's no discussion open to a motion second question okay please two case number of LDC 24- 000045 based on compliance with the applicable findings I moov to recommend city council uphold the staff recommendations and I can make the fins all right we have a motion second we have a motion and a second any further discussion seeing none all in favor I all opposed hearing none motion passes unanimously good luck thank you all right move on to item 5.3 which is case number lc24 d44 Riverside SPD and we'll get a presentation from hi Grace oh thanks Y Cool all right good evening Commissioners Grace Madan Senior Management analyst here to discuss the Riverside SPD so the 1.39 Acre Site is located abing the trucky River across from Idol wild wild park west of the Terminus of Riverside Drive the applicant is requesting a zone change from multif family 30 units per acre to a specific plan district Key issues analyzed with this request included compatibility availability of services and infrastructure and conformance with the master plan I also think it's important to point out that some background on this site it's currently owned by the City of Reno in 2022 this city issued a request for proposals or RF P to find a party that would develop this site the current uh the city entered a purchase and sale agreement with built construction um for construction of this proposed project and so conceptually this kind of went to council and they went with built for kind of what they had proposed for this project the proposed change from mf30 to SPD will allow for a development of a 65ft tall 180 unit building although the applicant is only planning for about 123 units and 55 ft tall to provide some flexibility for the future without requiring an amendment to this handbook the applicant proposed development standards based on the larger 180 unit um 65ft tall complex so as discussed the overall development plan for this project is a 65ft tall building with 180 units and 109 parking spaces all other items will defer to Title 18 as amended something else this handbook will allow is to exempt the development from this shadowing ordinance that we have this shadowing ordinance requires all structures that are outside of downtown to that exceed 45 ft in height not cast a shadow on residentially zoned property between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2: p.m. on December 21st which is the shortest day of the year do the due to the proximity of this um site to downtown the height of the existing surrounding buildings and the opportunity for infill staff supports this exemption of shadowing I'd also like to point out that before this project came through um was 165t tall condo that was approved on this site and shadowing was also um deviated from just due to the kind of existing pattern of development in this area as mentioned previously all development that is not addressed in this handbook will defer to the mf30 or multifam 30 standards in RMC as amended here is a comparison of RMC standards and the development standards in the handbook as you can see it's fairly comparable aside from that density I would also like to point out that although the front setback is a minimum of 10 ft due to the access to the river access and the river it will be significantly larger than 10 ft in conclusion here are the findings for a Zony map Amendment here are the findings for a specific plan District this project does not conflict with state law conforms to a multiple or multiple master plan policies and it provides um a unique parcel with infield development that concludes my presentation uh the applicant is here prepared with a presentation as well but I'm available for questions thank you Grace get a presentation from the applicant's representative come on up good evening Chris Baker with manhard Consulting here on behalf of the applicant uh a few introductions first uh I have Kurt Stitzer with built uh in Riverside development Who is the applicant in the audience I also have uh members from kimley horn who are the engineer who prepared uh the preliminary studies including traffic and also he's trying to hide but Jim Mickey who's a beautiful rendering that is uh in front of you so he's the architect um again thank you to grace uh she did a great job um I'm gonna try not to be redundant I'll try and kind of skip through some slides to make sure uh um and uh save any time that you guys do have again project location at the Terminus of Riverside Drive just there north of the river existing zoning as indicated uh the master PL Suburban mixed juuse the zoning is mf30 uh a little bit of that background in 2005 LDC 293 was approved for the subs site uh again that was the 165 uh 12T 165 foot 12 story uh luxury complex and that was the mapping that you saw there on Grace's exhibits uh in 2022 was the uh issuance of the RFP which the applicant did respond to uh in the RFP I think it's important to point out that there were some strategic goals uh kind of these are the the five main ones address affordable and Workforce housing increase housing density uh ensure placemaking quality of life sustainability and uh have an attractive and vibrant trucky River Corridor uh in 2023 uh the applicant uh entered into a purchase and sale agreement uh with the city um based on on those goals and again the request in front of you as part of that purchase and sale agreement is the mf30 zone change to SPD which I believe was one of the terms of that purchase and sale agreement so as a result you end up with uh the existing going of mf30 and a proposed zoning of the SPD as you see there's actually another SPD uh that was in front of uh this Planning Commission I want to say last year that you see there on the corner of first in keyst so they're not unique to the area as indicated by staff the fdpd it's a hard one to say man it really is uh it really basically utilizes those mf30 based design standards so anything that is is not addressed reverts back to the underlying zoning in those standards uh and to meet those goals we utilized uh the mixed use Suburban design standard so we just picked them from a the next zoning design ation up which is in correspondence with the underlying master plan of suburban mixed use and again that was pertaining to allowable units maximum number of stories and Building height and then the Landscaping going from 20% to 10% uh the conceptual renderings and site plan actually do meet they actually exceed the 20% uh but if you did read in the staff report there's discussion of a future flood wall um adjacent to this property uh in the river and um the the request uh is for 10% to not prohibit any of the Landscaping from ultimately being torn out so uh as indicated the justification for this uh proposed SPD it is consistent with the property's SMU master plan designation uh and it is consistent and compatible with the surrounding development uh we're here to answer any questions and we agree with staff's recommendation for approval thank you thanks Chris appreciate it sure we will now go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Munoz please uh commissioner wi I spoke with the applicant representative briefly and I'm familiar with the site commissioner rorer please I spoke with applicants rep I reviewed emails and I've been to the site commissioner Basera same disclosures as commissioner burm commissioner Armstrong I spoke with the applicants representative R and received emails and I'm also familiar with the site commissioner Dracula same disclosures and for Comm belto same disclosure all right we got you back great okay we'll now open it up to public comment I have some requests to speak forms first up is Ronda th wishing to make a statement in opposition and after Ronda will be Dennis black I'm Rhonda Tyson I live next door to this proposed project let me explain what I've gone through over the last month this last Saturday it took me an extra half an hour to get to Renown hospital because Riverside Drive was closed and I got caught up in all the traffic that was trying to snake its way through downtown the Saturday before that I didn't even try to leave my apartment because all of the intersections that are purported to have been studied as part of this application were filled with thousands probably tens of thousands of pedestrians Vehicles baby carriages and bicycles why because Reno was celebrating Earth Day at idle wild park the Saturday before that I tried to go shopping Riverside Drive was closed for another event I had to turn around change my plans and go in a completely opposite direction this application talks about traffic as it existed on a November day over a period of two 2hour periods it didn't even capture the time when Reno high school students flood that intersection when they come home from school is there anybody here who has said they're familiar with the area who believes that traffic on a November day on a Wednesday is the same as it is on a Friday in July it's not even the same on a on a Saturday in April I oppose this zoning change but today I have a much smaller ask ask the question how are you going to come in and out of that project when Riverside Drive is shut down how are you going to come in and out of that project on Food Truck Friday or feed the camel Wednesday or Earth Day or any or any really nice day in June July August April September you haven't asked the question so there isn't an answer to it I'm lastly concerned about the proposal indicating that it is going to to usurp our private property rights at 1200 Riverside for a throughway for emergency vehicle needs to go back to the planning stages so these problems can be addressed thank you thank you as well all right next up is Dennis black wishing to make a statement uh oh is in opposition but does not wish to make do you want to come to the mic I'll make a quick one all right it's all you go ahead brother and next up is Jody black hi Dennis black also uh next door neighbor to the project uh my comments are very similar to um ronda's about the I'm I'm kind of on board with something pretty being built there instead of the lot that's looking kind of crappy and um but just the size of it seems crazy and there's only half amount of parking places in there to accommodate the people that live there I know that's code apparently but you can't get anywhere now today just we walked here to this meeting tonight and there was eight City Areno trucks and a fire truck blocked that whole area so no one could walk could could drive in there where their access point is going to be the only access point to that property they were cutting down a cottonwood tree and that whole area was packed so if if there was an emergency tonight someone could not get out of there and we and one of our entrances was blocked completely to our property so there's just it seems like too congestion too much congestion and um not enough thought given in that traffic and parking area just if they had more on-site parking for them would help the neighborhood which is already impacted with the parking area as it exists now with all the apartments and condos around the area so thank you thank you as well Jody black is uh in opposition oh do you want to make a statement um thank you please Jody black I live at Trail hund Riverside um I'm in not in opposition of something being built on that property I think that would uh develop the property positively and I look forward to that o over the vacant lot that is there right now um one of the things that we heard at one of our own homeowner um Associated Association meetings was about the access from this property through our private property to allow for emergency vehicles not to have to turn around and so I just feel like this evening we haven't heard about that part of their proposal to allow uh vehicles to go through our property um and so I'm concerned about that overall and not sure when that part of the question gets answered okay thank you very much for your time thank you as well Michelle any more requests to speak forms on this item I did not receive any more requests to speak forms correspondence was received um and that was distributed to the Planning Commission and has been entered into the record we did not have anyone um registered to speak via zoom and we did not receive any voicemails on this item all right thank you 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 of Staff or the applicant commissioner Armstrong please uh this one's for staff thank you Grace can you just get into more detail for me on the access road and some of the easement um issues I I guess I don't understand how you could get through someone's private property I guess at will I don't really know how to explain it but if you could just give me some more insight on how that would actually work and and what the the intent actually is sure and I can explain um kind of like a broad overview and then we do have Chief Cochran and then the applicant can get into some more specifics um if I could get the overhead okay so to orient you Riverside Drive is the Terminus is right here the um private property 1200 R Riverside is this property and then this is the proposed project um and so this access would be new um I don't have an existing photo of the site but the the the thought is you know you don't have to obviously get through 1200 Riverside to get to this site I think some of the concerns raised is if they want to go through because the fire truck doesn't want to turn around right here um which was was kind of the intent was that there is kind of sufficient space for them to turn around that they would have to go through that private property so um from our understanding working with our fire department that that wouldn't be necessary it would also help kind of improve the access that's there currently for 1200 Riverside that they could use actually this private property to get to 1200 Riverside in case of emergency and just increase their access there um and so that's kind of my understanding working with our fire department thank you I'm good for now commissioner Muno or velto didn't want to forget about you before we come back here hey commissioner Mayers I'm good thank you okay looks like maybe commissioner baser I appreciate I appreciate it staying here all right thank you any questions on this end uh sure yeah go for it uh maybe for Grace um along the lines of traffic but maybe more pedestrian traffic uh we heard some comments about just congestion and uh when we have these high density projects that's going to be part of the package and and maybe taking a step back or zooming out a little bit um what what's our strategy our multimodal strategy in general to help address single vehicle usage and that congestion that comes with it um I know there was concern about or a question posed is there enough parking for all these folks or is it assumed that everyone's going to be you know one toone vehicles or folks are going to be walking and do we have public transportation so glad you asked this question I'm so glad I printed this um if you could zoom in so there is a bus stop kind of on Keystone in first and it's less than a quarter mile from this proposed site and so that was definitely something that staff looked at as a as a a benefit um but they're not proposing to vary from parking standards so the way our parking requirements work is if you're within a quarter mile from the downtown zone or a downtown mix use downtown Zone you can provide parking at 60% of a one:1 ratio so um the applicant is providing parking at that code ratio um I think that it's definitely a busy area um and there's some different policies to take into account at this point I mean there's a lot of studies that prove that density increases you know neighborhood and Community character um and a sense of neighborhood and I think the fact that this is a busy area is a a good thing you know there's people being drawn to this area for certain reasons so there's an availability to use public transit there's an availability to use um different modes of transportation more so than a lot of the other projects that we see before you and those projects are also meeting their parking needs so they're not asking to vary from parking there's availability of different modal Services um and it's you know within a quarter mile of downtown great thank you Grace and just one quick followup um there was a comment about the traffic study potentially being done like on a slow day when folks are probably eating turkey or tamales and not out driving around was it done on on a slower day than usual or was it done on a typical you know day or over the course of a week or to I can defer to the engineer who did the um traffic study sure thank you David Joan kimle horn traffic engineer for the record this was done on Wednesday November 15th that was a week before Thanksgiving not the day before Thanksgiving and that is a standard day okay great thank you so much commissioner Dracula a question for Grace I know you can't it's kind of tough to answer but east side of the building is an unnamed alley I'm assuming I've never traveled that alley it gets you to Jones Street I mean we're going to assumes that some residents are going to utilize that and so we do kind of have this Riverside or probably a little bit of a shortcut down the alley do you see any problem with residents using that no there's um there is some parallel parking along that alley on their private property and I know that I think people utilize this alley for there were some comments that um people walk on this alley I do know just from visiting the site that some people Park on this alley they use it to drive currently um and so that's not a concern okay it looks like it provides some relief to the conversation that we're having right now so and it's not being changed yep no change great catch you yeah yeah thank you sir um along the lines of foot traffic and there was a I think comment about fire engine potentially being able to go through the private property and I think from my understanding directly ahead that adjacent building oh perfect oh yeah perfect um is this the new one is this the proposed this is proposed okay um so if the fire engine went just kind of straight instead of doing a uturn um would that potential traffic of the fire engine impede pedestrian ability like the residents in that adjacent building to be able to walk freely or anything of that sort so if the fire truck was on the proposed project site M it could I mean I don't think it would there's about 40t from the entrance to the garage to the end of the pavement um the access total is 26 ft and so it does give them adequate space for a fire engine I don't know that during an emergency people would necessarily be allowed to walk under like like the ladder while they're fighting it um so I don't that's that's not like a preferred pedestrian route at a time of emergency um so I don't know if that helps answer your question yeah I I think so because I I was trying to keep in mind too I think there was talk about a wall or something going and and potentially losing some of that current space and so there is a proposed flood wall and that's proposed from the City of Reno um we don't know where that is going to be and we don't know when that will be constructed and so it became difficult for the applicant I know um one of their proposals is a you know possible pedestrian path along the river because we don't know about this flood wall yet it puts a lot of things um kind of in uh you know they're a little unknown and so they um once we kind of have a better idea of where that flood wall will be we can kind of make some plans for to improve that Riverside but um at this point we just don't know when that will be or where it will be okay thanks and one last followup before you get off the there um if this goes forward tonight um what's the next steps that maybe the community spe specifically the neighbors can anticipate because there are a lot of valid concerns and questions a lot of unknowns to your own admission uh of when something might happen and so forth and so maybe another way of questioning is is there still room for Community input down the road uh should this get approved this evening and and I asked too because I believe is this NAB 2 is is this or word one is this I I believe it was cancelled once or twice recently and and so that doesn't leave a lot of room for folks to really share their feedback and to collect that feedback correct and so there will be because this is a zone change it comes to the Planning Commission Planning Commission is recommend recommending body to city council and so there will be um two opportunities at city council to provide comments and input um at that time time great so we're still in early stages thank you all right we can move into discussion Andor entertain a motion I'm definitely going to support this project and commissioner rorer I mean not only did the city put out an RFP for this specific and selected this design I think it exemplifies the sorts of goals we have for our downtown it serves as a nice transition in terms of height from its context it opens up new access on the river it adds enhancement to a blad Uh current empty lot in a very prime location I see only good things here great sounds like you might want to make a motion I will sure in the case of LDC 24- z0000 000044 three z uh based on compliance with the applicable findings I recommend that city council approve the zoning map Amendment second subject to condition one is the proposed motion just if you want to make sure that's tacked in there subject to the proposed amendment okay we have a motion commissioner Basera second we have a motion in a second any further discussion boys online there is nothing I could have said that would have been better than what commissioner R said so I will support the motion as well this is commissioner valto okay go to a vote all in favor any opposed hearing none motion passes unanimously good luck with your project we are going to uh take a 10-minute break we will convene back here at 7:50 Grace can you come back too I've never e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Michelle how we looking you ready all right folks in the chambers we're GNA get back from this [Music] break all right uh Alex and Arthur you good hey hey folks in the front here we're going to start the meeting again please yep good to go here commissioner BTO Arthur you back bub Michelle do we have commissioner cool all right all right we're GNA reconvene here moving on on to item 5.4 case number lc24 d43 silver dollar storage and we got a presentation for staff good evening Commissioners Carter Williams associate planner for the record before you this evening is a conditional use permit for a self storage facility located in North Valleys the 9 uh 9 9 Acre Site is located south of silver dollar Lane across from cloud burst Drive um for area context um so this is located along us395 um with lemon drive to the uh sorry it's north of Lemon Drive and south of stead Boulevard the specific request is a conditional use permit for a 400 unit mini warehouse facility with outdoor RV storage adjacent to residentially zone property so the property is located within The General commercial Zone which has a a a wide uh variety of commercial uses allowed um the mini any warehouse use specifically requires a cup um in addition to that any uh uh non-residential development proposed adjacent to residentially zone property requires a site plan review and it is included in this application property carries the uh master plan land use designation of suburban mixed use and is conforming with policies related to Community Development as well as uh Transitions and this is specific to the scale of the proposed development adjacent to residential as well as um the implementation of standard uh residential adjacency requirements that are are required by code so the key issue identified in the staff report is compatibility with surrounding uses to the North and the East are single family neighborhoods um there is an existing self- storage facility to the west and a non-conforming single family residence to the South um that abuts the um the the freeway uh generally From staff's perspective uh and I think this is um reactive to some extent or um supported by some of the public comment that we've received um regarding traffic the the proposed use of a mini warehouse is one of the lowest intensity uses um and and with the the scale proposed of being single story it's a low traffic generator and um a single story um building so adjacent to residentially own property this is probably more compatible than than other uses that would probably generate a lot more traffic um on this single lane or two-lane road um regardless staff has recommended conditions um in uh conjunction with uh residential adjacency standards um condition number nine is recommended to restrict the use of uh materials that might reflect or provide glare um from the building and roof um condition number 10 is specific design where it restricts the height and illumination of signs and prohibits flashing or animated signs condition number 11 um was proposed uh to allow for the Reno Police Department and code enforcement to review um the operations um and the site uh in order to to balance um security with impacts on the on the adjacent neighborhood the proposed on screen is the proposed site um generally our residential adjacency standards require that higher activity or um uh areas of commercial uses be located away from residential um areas um the residents are the res IAL areas are to across silver dollar Lane in this um screen and um at the bottom that's the east east side of the the site um the proposed site plan um proposes everything concentrated in the center um and provides building walls um surrounding that high high intensity area um to reduce sound and other impacts to look closer at that that um that boundary between the residentially zone property there is a little bit more architectural interest on this side with this this the Jog and and the wall um and there is a higher density of uh um Landscaping provided in these areas to provide a buffer um between that that residential to the uh East um and a code requirement pursuant to the Land Development code is that a minimum of one evergreen tree is provided for every 30 fet generally they've provide a mix of Evergreen and deciduous trees um that goes above and beyond that requirement these are the elevations the north elevation is proposed um facing uh the silver dollar Lane and the the lower image is the East Elevation facing um the residential zone property generally this does actually meet the requirements for um architecture within the code um and the East Elevation is supplemented um also with uh that uh clustered and additional Landscaping as well as a 6ot solid fence um that's existing to the to the um to the to those residences to the east on the screen are the findings uh required of a conditional use permit um staff was able to meet um all the findings with the code requirements regarding residential adjacency being robust as they are and um the additional conditions and on the screen is the recommended motion um we have a St a presentation from the applicant um I will be available for any questions thank you Carter appreciate it got a presentation from John good evening Commissioners John krmpotic with KS planning representing the applicant is there a different audio system here there is I I'm usually getting uh grinded by some of you about extending the microphone but it seems like it's resonating more you're good now buddy we did it for you thank you yeah um this is a lot more comfortable too with staff going first so thank you very much for the change in course I won't be redundant in this case um staff touched on that there's the site I agree entirely that the issue really is about compatibility and so uh what I'm prepared to talk about is the land use intensity which is an obvious measure of compatibility and then there's design mitigation basically of which Carter hit pretty hard um the one side A1 Storage of course um the compatibility takes care of itself so really the focus on our effort in design uh has been about the adjacency and then the activity of being Central to the site RV parking in the center basically a horseshoe type of design and then so that obviously deals with the mitigation on the traffic the noise the parking we have wallpack uh light mounted uh lights mounted on the buildings that are 9 ft tall all contained internal to the site then on the residential side as Carter pointed out the articulation of the building there you can sort of see it in the footprint with the entire setback covered with the landscape as proposed the 95 trees and uh close to 600 shrubs North facing that's the north elevation facing the street which is fairly well embellished with regard to that being a public View Corridor obviously and similarly on uh the residential just uh to give you orientation to the site as it sits today that was done in the wet part of the year there's a residence in this is from the freeway you can see some perspective of the adjacent residential the storage and then there's the existing structure there um I did like to touch on since uh it was in the staff report but I think the fact that there were 16 letters from Neighbors I think is usually meaningful and you go what's going on here and uh 10 of them suggested that storage isn't needed obviously it's a market issue I'm working on three in the region right now it's a crazy thing but what we find out from the market experts are that we're shrinking in house size we're obviously shrinking in yard seed what s which is good it's a resourceful way to manage growth but we have all our stuff and we're doing offsite stor I.E Mini Storage that's really what's going on uh so there is still from my understanding and I deal with this a fair amount uh certainly not an expert at it but just the market side of storage is significant still and uh uh apparently not being met yet so there's that I do respect the comment the fact that 10 citizens did put it in their letters seven say too much traffic obviously we all know that this type of use is the least intense use there is in the develop velopment business right 100 uh uh basically 10 p.m peak hour trips 18 100 ad0 less than what would be um with houses there and uh just the NAB comments real quick I think we've embraced them and addressed them in the design as presented lighting given the res residential adjacency obviously contained to the Horseshoe area the internal part enhanced landscape uh enhanced screening with the landscape buffer and then uh maintenance of the landscape buffer really the issues so uh thank you to staff uh it's been a pleasure working with Carter I like him and I really appreciate his preparedness and professionalism and uh with that I will just leave it for any questions thank you very much thanks Sean appreciate it we'll go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Armstrong please commissioner Armstrong R received emails commissioner roor Meer same disclosures Comm commiss Basera same disclosures commissioner Munoz commissioner Muno same disclosures commissioner vter same disclosure commissioner Dracula same disclosures all right we will now open it up to public comment Michelle I don't see any requests to speak forms how about any Zoom I did not receive any request to speak forms um no one is has their hand up for Zoom um we did receive correspondence that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and is added to the record and and no voicemails were received all right thank you oh we do oops we do have um allow to talk we do have somebody that keeps raising their hand so I'm not sure if she wants to speak um we have Amber on the line Amber can you hear us yes I'm trying to get this to work is it working for you guys good go ahead did awesome I just yeah I I would like to speak on this if I could can you state your name for the record please Amber Davis thank you whenever yeah go ahead yep oh okay thank you so first off I would like to say that this has been a family-owned business right next to the property A1 Storage since in the 1970s this this business has really going to be impacted by another storage facility right next to it there's only one entrance into the facility as as it stands that silver dollar Lane entry they're going to have to pass two entrances into this storage facility before reaching A1 storage facility and there's only a one way one way to get there so I I just wanted to make aware that it's really going to be detrimental to this this other storage facility that's already here and then let alone another thing with the traffic coming in there is going to be more traffic I know it's one of the least amount of traffic things because it's a storage facility but that's another aspect to it to have to go around the round about and pass all the residential areas to get to the storage facility here when there's already one there I I just wanted to make that aware to the community that this is going to affect the other storage facility a lot and change the look at the community and I I don't I'm in opposition of it it's fence to fence with this other one okay thank Youk you thank you very much any more zoom no that was it okay anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we'll close public comment go to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or the applicant commissioner R I have a question for Carter this is um looking at the site plan what is the distance between the driveway with the neighboring storage which enters just west of the driveway the second driveway do you have the site plan so the there is a there is uh we may be able to pull up the site plan if we could on that and we can look at it um there is a driveway I guess you're more concerned about the driveway between the seem awfully close so there is there's two driveway accesses um adjacent to one is an existing access easement that provides access to the uh the property to the rear close for the freeway um but then I don't know if John might be able to answer that is yeah like um I don't have an answer for you it it is it's it meets our standards for for driveway distance though all right just appreciate the comment we got from public comment thank you commissioner Muno or VTO no questions thank you commission no questions thank you okay commissioner s go ahead sure um maybe for Carter um build upon commissioner Ro me's comment but a little different um we sure are getting a lot of storage unit requests maybe the north Valley's um is there particular reason or Trend or thing you can speak to um I working with um some of the applicants that have proposed these I mean there is a consistent Trend that they they communicate that there there is a need there is a mark Market need um and that does make sense as as we start building houses there is there is okay a natural need I think for storage facilities um I I can't really speak more to that from a a from a staff perspective um but it isn't allowed use and it's um I think it does meet certain I mean criteria that align with some of the comments even though they're in opposition so great thanks Carter we can move into discussion and I I I'll piggy that commissioner baser yeah I mean I guess what I didn't think about till John made the comment is we do build out build a lot out there and you know lot sizes are smaller and I could see how you know if these companies are finding a market need and we're doing something that's low impact and no it's not a strip mall with restaurants and Retail and things which we like to see in North Valleys but this obviously is fitting the need of the neighbors um so it's great to see this you know something other than residential um and if the market yields it and they fill up then obviously we're helping those community members up there and they're not storing three miles down the highway to somewhere else so to your point it was it kind of hit me when John mentioned it so and if there's no other discussion we'll entertain a motion not you to make a motion please do commissioner Armstrong in the case of lc2400 43 silver dollar storage based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings we have a motion Miss V all second we have a motion and a second any further discussion all in favor I I I any opposed hearing none motion passes unanimously good luck with your project thank you all right we'll move on to the final item of the night item 5.5 case number lc2400 46 Rancher Village 7 tenative map we will get a presentation from staff Leah good evening uh chairman members of the commission for the record Leah picotti I'm an associate planner with the City of Reno development services this evening I am presenting an application for a tentative map which would allow for a 59 unit single family residential subdivision located in Village 7 of [Applause] rancha the 12 acre project site is located Southwest of the McCaron k ski intersection on the north side of Falabella way the proposed tenative map will allow for a 59 unit single family detached residential subdivision with common areas detached single family residential uses are allowed by right in the ranchera urban residential land use area which Village 7 is key issues analyzed in this request are the overall site design compatibility with surrounding development ments and uses parking and access and circulation with all the recommended conditions of approval the proposed design meets and exceeds code standards addresses applicable findings and staff recommends approval subject to the conditions of approval lifted in the staff report in the addition of one condition that I'm going to present tonight to give you a little bit of background the ranchera Pud handbook was originally adopted in the early 1990s prior to the imple implementation of the Pud handbook the site was used as the Harris family ranch uh more commonly known as ranchera tentative maps have been approved for villages 1 through 6B the table on the screen there is an accounting of all of the number of lots allowed and the number of lots approved and proposed for each of the villages here you can see that within Village 7 the urban residential area the Pud handbook allows for 310 units this is the most dense area of ranchera um however the proposed number of lots before you tonight is 59 uh so the overall density of this area is significantly reduced from what was originally appr approved in the handbook as proposed the request does conform to ranchera handbook and Reno Municipal Code the proposed lot lines of the proposed lots are zero lot lines ranging from about 3200 square ft to about 3,300 square ft the homes will be developed in clusters as you can see there on the board with up to six homes per shared driveway the property surrounding the homes will be common area which will be per condition six landscaped and maintained by the homeowners association additionally regarding the overall site design we've added condition number 11 which just makes sure that there are sidewalk on both sides of the roadway and that those sidewalks do connect to the entrance of each residence additionally there is a public utility easement along the northern portion of the site we will need to have that public utility easement relinquished prior to approval of the final map regarding compatibility to the north and east our existing office complex and a senior housing deel velopment per the Rancher handbook homes directly adjacent to the existing buildings shall provide a 10-ft landscape setback and an additional one: one height setback ratio for each foot in height over 15 ft since at this point this is just a tentative map and we don't know if those are going to be one or twostory uh we have implemented condition number nine which just repeats what the handbook already says but we just want to make sure that that's in in there in for all future review additionally regarding compatibility we have implemented condition number 10 which restricts the days and hours of construction that does restrict it to um 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and there will be no construction on Sundays or holidays regarding parking um all homes will include a two-car garage which will provide 118 spaces 60 additional off street parking spaces will be provided within the shared driveways since there will be no on street parking staff recommended condition number seven which requires three parking spaces per unit Reno the Rancher handbook defers to Reno municipal code regarding parking any residence under 2500 ft requires two parking spaces anything over 2500 ft requires three parking spaces since at this time we don't know what the size of these homes are going to be I think they're going to range somewhere between 2100 and 2800 we are requiring that each home uh does provide that three parking spaces again since there's no on street parking got to allow for some guests let's see uh as proposed 10 units will have private driveways which is the orange you can see up there on your screen staff recommended condition number eight which requires that all driveways be a minimum of 19 ft in length again that's a repeat of something that's directly out of the handbook but since the exhibit on your screen there doesn't exactly demonstrate that we just wanted to condition it to make sure that we do get that length and people aren't parking in the shared driveways um outside of designated parking areas the northwest of portion of the site is developed with a parking lot for the existing 6100 square foot uh sales building which you can see in the Box on the bottom left hand side of your screen um prior to the Planning Commission hearing staff performed a site visit to determine if the southern parking lot which you can see on your screen there with that 16 parking spaces meets Reno Municipal Code yesterday we went out there we determined it doesn't currently beat Reno Municipal Code so we are asking that the commission add condition of approval that prior to the demolition of the existing parking lot that that parking lot be brought up to code regarding access and circulation a traffic input study was uh approved along with an amendment to the handbook in 2014 and then a traffic study update was provided in 2018 uh the study itself looked at there being 310 10 multifam Apartments here so with 10 trips a day which is the average for a residential use that study contemplated 3,100 trips per day out of Village 7 the actual proposed is 59 units which would be approximately 590 per day that's like a 75% reduction in what was shown there therefore staff did not require an updated traffic analysis for the proposed development we did receive quite a bit of public comment on this and the main concerns there were traffic limited access in and out narrow roadways removal of the existing parking lot and lack of parking in the village some of the mitigation that we looked at there was regarding traffic and limited access in and out again the proposed use anticipates 77% less daily trips than the traffic study that was submitted so staff H staff is having a hard time suggesting that they update that when it's such a significant reduction regarding the narrow roadways roadways have been designed to meet the minimum requirements in unit 7 we are not going to allow any on street parking so hopefully that will mitigate some of the concerns regarding the narrow roadways lack of parking in the village again Reno Municipal Code requires two spaces for up to 2 200 square ft we condition seven is going to require three spaces per unit which exceeds the code requirements and then regarding demolition of that existing parking lot staff recommends the Planning Commission add a condition of approval that states prior to the demolition of the existing parking lot the parking lot to the south of the existing sales Center be brought into compliance with Reno Municipal Code tenative map findings are pretty basic we have a compatibility finding which being that this is surrounded by residential and loow Impact Office uses we do find that this use is compatible in this location the subject proposal does comply with the master plan uh NRS RMC and the Rancher handbook standards and in some cases it exceeds those standards and because this is an infill project public services and utilities are available for this project so staff was able to make all of the tenative map findings here the recommended motion does include the addition of um that condition regarding the parking lot that concludes my presentation as always I'm available for questions thank you very much thank you as well we'll get a presentation from the applicant all right good evening uh lee did a great job my name is Eric Hasty for the record I'm representing the applicant um they did a great job so I will just kind of touch on some of the concerns that we heard at the NAB um and try to go over anything else that I think could add to um her presentation so just to reiterate um this is the last Village really the last large Village in ranchera uh ranchera has gone through a number of tentative maps and approvals and you can see that we have a total of the approved units there and most of these other villages we were able to um to propose and and get as much as much units as was allowed in there and so Village 7 really took up about I mean there's 310 of the 722 units with that are allowed within Ranch a as a whole so that's almost half of the um the units and we're proposing 59 so with this you can see with this overlay as well um looking at the actual aerial or the latest aerial that we've had that anera is almost built out there are few areas where um increased density could could come in um the commercial area is pretty much built out there's a little bit in the red area and the North Commercial and um but all throughout this this is the the last big area within ranchera and when this was originally approved for the 722 units and all these other assumptions as far as types of commercial uses that were being allowed um the the trip that were proposed to be generated in this were were far higher than than what we're seeing right now and especially with this proposal and those traffic mitigation measures that were recommended in that traffic study have already been put in um prior to even coming forward with this proposal furthermore if there is any other uh impacts that are happening within the area these units will have uh Regional impact fees that are associated with them and those go into a general fund for RTC and uh City Reno to try to decide where they can be used so if there's any other traffic mitigation measures that need to be um addressed then the these these units will go to Regional impact fees to address those so addressing the the additional um condition um I would just like to state that we are in under the understanding that we could we would be able to meet this condition we will be removing the north lot and because this was this was being used as a sales Center um a lot of people came in using the north lot there was access uh you didn't have to go through the Gated area and without this Sal Center there now we don't really need have a need for this much parking this sales Center is going to be functioning as an office but it's not going to have as many visitors so it's required less parking 16 parking spaces is what it's going to be required to provide and uh there's plenty of room for us to go ahead and and and incorporate those improvements prior to the removal of the parking lot in the north again looking at um how this is laid out these are patio homes which is is is very similar to a single family detached however you don't have the lot you don't have the backyard you don't have um a private backyard that's fenced or anything like that and so this is is a little bit different than what you see traditionally but this is really gear geared towards people who don't really want to have any maintenance on the outside so pretty much everything that you own is on the inside is very much like a town home everything on the outside is really taken care of by the HOA and this will add a bunch of landscaping as well as pedestrian amenities throughout the development and then looking at the parking again we are proposing three parking spaces per unit which is based on the maximum amount you can have for a single family detached uh that is required by City Areno code um this is 60 additional off street parking spaces as well as two gar two spaces per garage and you can see that those zoomed in one there how this kind of really functions um these shared driveways are more like an alleyway way where you're not really allowed to park there are some options for people that uh that's for some of these units that will have private drives where you can park in front of the garage but that's only on several of them like Leo was explaining um and then the reason for this parking requirement is because each one of these homes has the ability to go to two stories but the twostory um addition is really only um for another room um a bonus room really the most of the H houses are designed to just be at one story and so along the northern boundary where you have that additional setback there most likely won't be um all of these homes having two-story and that's where it triggers the three parking spaces per unit U according to Reno code um and so there's highly unlikely that all of these will go to the two-story um just to point out too there is an existing detention Basin uh to the north that's that's kind of operating for the entire Rancher development that is part of this um development um that will remain as part of this as well and be Landscaping incorporated into it um I am I'm available for any questions if you guys have any thank you thank you I appreciate it we go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Ro Meer please commissioner rire spoke with the applicant and I'm familiar with the site I'm sorry read and received emails as well commissioner Basera same disclosures commissioner Armstrong same disclosures commissioner VTO commissioner commissioner VTO same disclosure commissioner Muno same disclosure commissioner Dracula same disclosures all right we will now open it up for public comment we'll start with the request to speak forms first up is Christine speed and after Christine we'll have Ronald gray I'm going to use the overhead could you please um bring the microphone closer to you please yes um my name is Christine speed and I am live in cantero and I'm here because although the residents now hold about $310 million plus stake in ranera we are still not consulted about any development plans that will affect the enjoyment of our property or its value so here is the first map like many I'm concerned about how traffic flow from Village 7 will degrade my community and my community is cantero that's this here that's cantero let's see um because Village 7 is not just alone by itself on a map it lives within a context and that context is cantero and Lao 2 here red curved dapple gry way is the street right here and it measures 24 feet wide its extreme narrowness can only have been approved by the city because it was pitched as an access road for the residents of Cano only and here is an example of what our tight life looks like when the weekly garbage trucks come through let's see this way um we can't pass uh the garbage truck and during construction all the tradesman's trucks had to park two wheels on our sidewalks in order to allow any traffic to come through obviously little Dapple Gray where we're not even allowed to park in front of our homes because of its double red curbs was never designed as a throughway yet it's become one to accommodate the traffic from Lao 2 L go 2 is over here see how sealed off it is and when they come from the south they come down ranchera Parkway and instead of going all the way up here to ranchera and then down in Falabella to get to home they shortcut through here and so that right now we're living through a traffic failure and um before let's see Village 7 is far more dense uh than even we are and two curbs are here you've got entrances going on Falabella but these curbs these entrances are going to use Dapple Gray if you don't build their own exit onto Sierra Rose drive thank you so much for your time thank you appreciate it uh next it was uh Ronald gray says he does not wish to make a statement but it is in opposition all right next up would be Glenn Gray wishing to make a statement in opposition okay that works hello uh my name is Glenn Gray I live at 7:30 caner way in ranera our master plan was developed over 10 years ago and what we see today is very different than when it was conceived it has evolved and has been changed incrementally over the years as developers come before the Planning Commission to put forth their ideas for development there are now almost 250 residents already built in ranchera the master plan was conceived without any of those residents having any input Voice or influence as to what the community would look like that does not have to continue I'm going to ask you when was the last time all of you visited ranchera where did you go and what time of day were you there same with the staff if you haven't been there recently I'll invite you to take you on a personal tour to show you ranchera at certain times of day such as the photograph of the trucks coming through the small streets when a developer presents you with a plan I'm curious as to what your evaluating priorities are for that plan with regard to the proposed 59 Home Development where do the residents that live in the community rank in those priorities are we number one are we number six are we number seven are we considered at all has the staff or any of you suggested any changes to the current proposed plan if you have we'd like to know what was found wrong with it and what was suggested to change it well like maybe instead of 59 homes maybe 40 homes maybe more open space parking how are you going to have someone come over have two family members come over where are you going to park their cars you have one parking space extra per house and none on the street where do they Park someone suggested that they park over at the club three and a half blocks away have your parents come over and join you for dinner tell them to park three and a half blocks away there is zero parking zero on the street in there where do two guests with two cars park to visit you in the current development is approved Rancher will add at least 300 more cars when it's all developed in addition The Club at ranchera has over 300 nonresident members coming and going inside Ranch chir and the general population of the Reno metropolitan area has increased by 23% the traffic is reaching a crisis point today we have 300 more cars potentially coming thank you your time s my time is up yeah thank you for your time appreciate it next up is Michael gr good evening Commissioners hello my name is Michael Gratz I'm a current resident at ran I live in Cana I will be looking onto this beautiful development I'm not OPP post to the development at all because it's obviously land that was designated for for for construction however um the current proposed plan lacks Vision it lacks Vision not just for today but for 10 years from now um specifically as you already heard about the traffic I don't I don't see the three parking per home I don't see that the current Roy you got any good jokes thank you oh no not yet Roy I think we're good buddy go ahead and fire away all right sir all right thank you Mr chairman for the record my name is Roy cage thank you uh nice to see all your members of the board I live in ranera uh we Bor in there I think in 2017 or a lot we got an occupant super in 2020 I think we're the seventh or Eighth House in there I think that people who buy property whether they do it individually through groups or whatever a little closer to the mic sorry closer to the mic thank you uh I think they should determine what they do with their property however you can't do it by stepping in the face of your neighbors are causing a dangerous situation and our friend Christine has shown you guys pictures of what the traffic is like in Cana and it's going to be worse in this place most of the folks that occupy a rera I'm not one of them but but there's a lot of them from California who come up here and they're either uh refugees or missionaries I don't care which anyway they when they come in and they're kids and grandkids and so forth come in to visit they have parking spaces they need on the street I I just can't see 59 houses in here ladies and Gent uh the density density is what I'm talking about we need to reduce it and if you want to have a good Street think of this Mr rayy can one of his Troopers can tell us to the inch how far it would be but in my view you ought to be able to have a garbage truck pass a fire truck go in an opposite direction ctions with cars parked on one side of the road and if you reduce that density to that I think you'll be in the ball part thank you thank you next up is Audrey Keller wishing to make a statement in opposition and next will be another Mr Keller go this way oh okay thank you k for the record and I'd like to show on my on your screen thank you very much let me move this over a little bit so we're we're all residents here and we want to talk about parking because we know for a fact that everybody's bringing in their Suburbans and yes I came from California sorry Roy but I think you like me anyway um what I did was take the plan and I circled in showing you three extra parking spaces five extra par parking space is three I count 11 guest parking spaces uh for 59 homes and that's insufficient and then the original plan that we were shown at the NAB meeting when this plan was shown to us there was uh basically an old asphalt parking lot used for the secondary parking lot only held six since the city went for a visit they repainted it like this last week and put in and I think about 15 spots well they're doing that in anticipation of wiping out this parking lot shown here which is interesting it's for four more homes however what they don't tell you is that the Rancher clubhous is so small most of you have all been in it I'm going to guess that the HOA meetings are held inside this facility it's gorgeous it's got a full kitchen in it it could be a restaurant it doesn't have to be an office yes it's commercial however wiping out this beautiful parking area for this community is ridiculous it's a waste and it an abuse of where parking could be for the community so now I want to show you this I checked this with the city planner thank you Miss thank you um I wanted to know if first I want to make you familiar with the parking lot itself because we're talking about the residents are talking about parking this is the front entry the main entry of that beautiful commercial building they're going to wipe it out so that building gets its stuff cut off when you take off that front entry and the part I checked about is the Tabet Lane entrance to this parking lot is private property that street is private when it when it comes around the corner goes before the gate house that's private so they should have an entrance right here this is a custom Monument built for the sales office why are they going to wipe that out it's they they said it wasn't fenced the whole thing is fenced it's gorgeous so my suggestion is a don't let them wipe out that entrance for four houses they wipe out the entrance they destroy the public building and they don't allow for parking and finally the developer showed us what they did when they closed off which they closed off the tabbit entrance to guests no tabbit movement for guest parking that's important why because that changes the nature of the traffic study that means all visitors have to come through the row of death which is off of kky so they changed we need a new traffic study thank you thank you all right next up is Werner Keller wishing to make a statement in opposition good good evening everyone uh wter Keller also rancha resident uh been there a couple years uh I don't want to repeat stuff that's already been said uh so I'd like to I I do want to underline the one comment that there's now 250 of us uh Allin the average uh investment per house is at least a million dollars and in case of some of the others it's three or4 million so we have a quarter of a billion dollars invested for much of the time that you guys and ladies have been listening to uh to the to these various proposals to develop communities inside of ranchera there's nobody there there's nobody there during covid there's nobody there during these traffic studies for for please make sure that you mandate another traffic study because right now almost any time of day you come down Rancher Parkway past the uh past the shopping center there and there's a line there's a line to get out to kitsy is a as a bottleneck and uh I don't know uh I haven't studied it I but I I am very fearful that any kind of emergency in this new community uh will be a disaster I think emergencies in cantero could also potentially be a a disaster today so um the input that you get from us is different from the input you get from your staff this a very technical business that you're in and we appreciate the job you're doing I'd like to use the projector if I could for a second it's an example of the uh the process the planning process this is um thank you very much for putting all of your uh work papers online this is from 19 um 2018 I'm sorry not 19 and this is a modification to the ranchera handbook and it says Building height might be modified etc etc very technical language and if it it doesn't work then we'll mitigate whatever that means what what this was done for was to uh allow the construction of these Villas behind the mansion and um and of course it went through because there was no one there to oppose it and now the Villas are built and any one of us uh you can take any one of us up on our invitation go take a look and tell me that the image of what we thought we were buying at ranchera has not changed dramatically with the addition of these very tall structures thank you very much thank you sir appreciate it all right we have three forms here in my hands that all three are in opposition to the project uh but also have stated they do not wish to make a statement so I have Katherine Coffer Carol Smith and Richard Smith uh not wishing to make a statement but they are in opposition all right Michelle anybody on Zoom we did have a couple people register to um speak and I think I'm not they don't have their hands up so I'm not sure if they still wish to speak but we had David um Wong so we'll bring him in David can you hear us yes I can did you wish to make public comment on this item uh yes I do um you have three minutes thank you um I am in opposition to the development as it stands uh and I am a Rancher resident as well um there does need to be as everybody has repeated uh exess a new traffic study um because even as the traffic study that was done years ago stands um the current situation as we see it resident is obviously far from satisfactory my suggestion would be that uh that development requires access to Sierra Rose on the I think it's the uh north side of it um so that there is access better access into that development um that was something that I would like to propose I'm not sure whether it's possible feasible but I think that is one possible solution um the issue that the canaro residents have I do totally simplifies and if this development with the current um flow of and the roads that's designed for the Pao homes is I think a emergency problem which I don't think has really been considered by the Planning Commission of the staff I think you need to look at that a little bit more seriously because with the density as it grows um I think the the um fire risk and emergency risks and the access to those for EMS so forth is actually very important um I I think that's that's that's anyway that's it that's all I have to say um thanks very much thank you um we also have um Danielle elongi I think she registered to speak oh she's not there never mind so she's not there we oh we have a voicemail that we'd like to play thank you my name is Marty Melaney and the case number is L dc24 d46 and it is ranch Hera um of Village 7 U project that's cleared before the Planning Commission and uh my comments are that um um the the project itself is good project we're concerned about the traffic that will'll create since the everything's being routed onto Falabella which has which is not a a large Road wide Road and that uh there should be uh another exit from the subdivision the new subdivision they could uh there could easily go out on Sierra row or they could EAS go out where there's an existing access on talet before the ranch Hera gate and uh that we're concerned about it from a Fire and Life Safety if everybody's being funnel on to F Falabella that um there'll be congestion and and um there'll be running and or they'll be going down uh Doppel gry way which is not me to have through traffic and at least if anything if you at least have the all the construction traffic when they're doing it come off tala or Sierra Rose and not through the rest of the neighborhoods there that's uh would be very Bene beneficial to the people living currently living in ranch Hera because the roads just are not that big to handle large uh construction vehicles and uh equipment so we really striving to have another exit that doesn't come out on fella either talbet or Sierra roads and that's our biggest concern thank you thank you as well Michelle any more zoom yes we we do um Danielle um elongi I believe are you there yes I am are you able to hear me yes we could hear you you have three minutes to make your public comment oh Fant fantastic so you know we're residents in ranchera and like some of the other community members have mentioned one of our greatest concerns at this moment is just you know the flow of traffic the Ingress the egress for uh emergency vehicles and the like and just making sure that um now that the community here has so many residents that perhaps a traffic study could be done currently to to see what would be appropriate in terms of how many dwellings now um to just make sure that the flow of traffic um is taken into consideration as well as even parking but certainly in the CA in the case of any kind of emergency vehicle or the necessity of fire trucks ambulances Etc um that that the driveways and the streets that the houses are on now would even be able to accommodate that much less the development growing um th those are concerns of ours especially since there's at this moment kind of one way in and one way out of the community just two points of entrance and exit so that's really Our concern as residents here thank you thank you okay um that's it thank you that's it for um public comment we did receive correspondence and NAB comments those were forwarded to the Planning Commission and have been entered into the record and I do not have any more uh request to speak forms okay great would you like to speak ma'am all right have you filled our request to speak form yet okay when you're done please do so but come on up and state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes thank you my name is Kathleen miles and I live in Cana and I'm not going to go over the traffic that's really been covered but I will say these old studies need to be Revisited specifically grading and drainage at for example at the foot of deel grave way and uh Kamar we get every time it rains or snows we get a lake that's approximately 20 feet by I'd say 12 feet at least could it goes past the halfway of the street it's huge and so all I say is I guess I would say to the staff or whoever is doing this that these old studies get updated that's my comment thank you thank you and if you can fill out a form thank you anybody else in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and go to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or the applicant commissioner Armstrong please uh thank you chair I'll start with staff good to see you Leia um okay so how common is it or is it common at all that studies would be Revisited for a development like this that started the entitlement process some years ago like do we have any examples of a traffic study being Revisited when you get to a tenative map stage for example like is this something we've done as a as a city council as a Planning Commission thank you commissioner Armstrong Leah picotti for the record I can't think of a time that this was done um but I do want to point out that for this particular development our engineering staff did look at it and determined that an updated study was not warranted um we Revisited that topic when was that that it when when was it that engineering Revisited it and basically said yeah there's no need for a new study it was during the review so it would have been probably within the last six weeks okay and because of all the public comment we received um we Revisited that again and again and we just couldn't find any way that we could warrant that study because it's not going to come out with anything different than what's already there being that there's a 77% reduction and we do I thought we did have um uh the engineering manager here to talk to speak on that topic but maybe he's not here yeah if I can chime in Mike reallyy planning manager um when we look at those studies we look at the assumptions that were made in the study um we've heard public comment that there's been change other changes within the area um when that traffic was done there's a regional model that accounts for basically projects that were approved but unbuilt that may have come online so when engineering staff looked at the assumptions that were in the report based on the reduction in density they did not require additional study and Mike Michelle our engineering manager here if you have any further questions sure no that that makes sense I guess what I'm getting at and sorry just just to confirm at the time these studies are done they do contemplate the full range of the development so I guess my point is this was always part of the analysis it was always going to be this big of a project this isn't new that is correct um since it I don't know that it was necessarily contemplated in the earlier Renditions of the handbook from the 9s but I can tell you that from 2014 on yes definitely perfect that's I I guess that's the point I wanted to get across thank you thank you commissioner oh commissioner VTO please uh hi yeah so I I have a few questions just about generally about the P handbook so the P handbook allows for 310 units is that accurate that is correct so this project could have been proposed to have three 10 units correct yes it would have allowed they deci to go 20% ofto you're cutting out we can't quite hear you I'm sorry how about now can you hear me now yes we can hear you now great so I just want to be clear so this project could have been proposed with 310 units and instead they're proposing roughly 20% of that correct yes correct so um I I kind of want to ask about the traffic so the standard for traffic is that the project must mitigate traffic what is your opinion as to how the project mitigates traffic I think that the I think sorry I'm getting some um the the mitigation for traffic was analyzed in that 2014 study and then updated again in 2018 again that study was contemplating development of the entire ranchera that's that's many more hundreds of units than what we're looking at right now I don't know exactly what that is and maybe Mr Michelle does but this is just a tiny piece of that that we're looking at and then again it's only like 20% of what was contemplated in that portion of the study if that makes sense sure and and I think that does make sense but I guess I want to focus on this idea of they have an obligation to mitigate traffic because it it looks to me as if they could have designed the project as having all traffic come out on one road as opposed to having multiple exits onto flabella I'm forgetting the name of the road um but would you agree that that is an attempt to uh like mitigate traffic by having multiple exits out of this complex yes I would agree not just with Village 7 that that migrates traffic but that because there are two accesses to ranchera it it that's another way to mitigate traffic alog together um with those twoo and I do realize that the gate house has been closed to guest traffic I did run into that issue when I was there for a site visit yesterday um so yes okay okay thank you so much commissioner Armstrong back to you this one's for the applicant either applicant so originally it would have been allowed up to 310 units that I presume would have been a lot of density you probably would have had to do something more like condos correct yeah Eric casy for the record yes that's correct so there were a number of residential types of uses in here and most likely to get that type of density it would have been condos condominium type of development so we could have had more density and 80 basically 80% more units than we're seeing right now yeah and that's what originally was was intended for this this Village and that's why they had the setback requirements along the uh North and eastern boundary because they intended for these buildings to be a lot much higher and is it fair to say that what you're proposing now actually conforms with the development in the area better than condos perh perhaps what have um it's it's it's very reflective of of the development that has been in Rancher and surrounding neighborhoods cool thank you commissioner rorer please yeah commissioner rorer questions for the applicant and maybe one for staff so just given the amount of you know public comment I just wondered if anyone during neighborhood meetings or as part of meeting with staff has anyone let the residents know that they can hire their own traffic consultant independent of a developer or the city uh Eric Casey for the record uh is I do not believe so we did not to my knowledge at the NA meetings it seems there's a lot of specific concerns about the current situation in parking and congestion I just want to put out that you may call Reno direct you know in the event of people parking on red curbs that they the availability of scientific and Engineering professionals to hire to get an analysts an analysis of the current situation um and I wasn't sure if that was made clear during the planning process that this is an option to the people who live there okay um but I do that's not the only question I have I actually am interested in why was there a decrease in density this is is the core of Reno this is a great project it and also with that did anyone talk to the commercial businesses it seems like the loss of 200 homes is a lot of walk-in traffic that could have been great for getting coffees it could have been great for supporting the businesses that are right there in the village and that this decrease in homes actually isn't that favorable to the businesses yeah thank you Eric Hy for the record again um you know this this as it's been stated this project has been approved for a number of years now over a decade and um this was the original intent of Village 7 was to have this type of density and you know there just wasn't enough interest in the market the market dicks takes everything just like they were talking about with the Mini Storage thing same thing in this case um they the the one that's coming forward with this development now is is the one that's made it this far because of the market conditions and specifically was that market conditions for different housing type or what what what smaller size units maybe you can give me a little Clarity and and the people Clarity why why the decrease in density we need housing you want hi Andy derling with wood Rogers uh also representing the applicant so um for this Village you know it is the last one um you know we have for many years now tested um I can't even count how many product types how many residential product types we've tested on this from um you know three four story Condominiums as as commissioner Armstrong mentioned that this could have been right that's the highest kind of best use of it um we tested you know triplexes Town Homes all sorts of things unfortunately there's just not um we they weren't able to kind of match that with with a builder right I mean ultimately we need a builder to come in and and build that housing product take the risk uh associated with that Financial outlay to to build these homes and it was determined you know after a lot of testing a different product that and market research that this in particular was um you you know of of significant interest to the market um it's pretty unique um this patio hone concept where you know there's a there's a handful of these types of of um uh communities around around town and they're very popular the resale on them is very popular a lot of this is kind of like a move down Market we anticipate uh where you know may be retirees looking to kind of down siiz from their larger lot into a still nice sized home but without the um uh the maintenance responsibilities right this is kind of a very um um you know plug-and-play if you will type of living situation with everything around you being maintained by Common Association all right thank you commissioner Munoz you want to chime in uh I don't have any questions but when we're ready to jump into discussion I'll get in okay uh just on I guess a slight dive into what you were asking is I asked the same question about what product why they didn't hit and then parlaying that into me being a residential realtor they're not wrong this is going to be a popular product um I have a lot of folks probably over the age of 50 want no yard maintenance but don't necessarily want a town home um so they're not wrong I wasn't shocked when I heard that answer which was this is going to be popular and I said I I know for a fact it will just CU I have people who would want this product and it's rare on that side so anyway just commentary from my personal life experience on that so I guess I just shift it into discussion unless anybody has any more questions commissioner baser sure thank you chair um probably more uh benign question since uh my fellow Commissioners uh already did an excellent job but maybe for staff for Leah I kid it's actually for the applicant I'm sorry Leah no problem I'm here if you need me for either yeah yeah uh Mr Hasty Eric um any I I believe um one of the fellow Commissioners mentioned this sory I think Leah spoke to this as well about the talbet road and how she hit maybe wanted to go through it but then realized she can't go through it any reason why it needs to be closed off and everyone needs to go through I think what was it called the death of row or something yeah um Eric Hy for the record uh so if I if I understand your question correctly it there's there was proposed two entrances and uh E points of egress and okay into Ranchero right um You have one that goes to kitsy and then one on talbat and that's what the whole traffic study everything is based on that um so if any um so any every village is anticipated to be accessed internally from those exits or ENT points of Entry and so with Falabella we have those two um access points onto there which will help disperse some of the traffic along that okay so in other words me as a guest I can go through talit or would I have to go through like closer to a pen and in that region uh Andy derling for the record um we as the um applicants representative not aware of of any closures but if I can kind of ascertain from what the public comment was it sounds like and my total assumption here um that maybe they are not Manning that gate for guests but residents have clicked to enter um so residents are able to use that gate um so guests are being maybe routed to um the kitsy entrance essentially um so that that is kind of the main entrance for Club um people that are going to the club things like that so that may be the case right now but you know residents I would fully assume have full access through that gate okay okay thank you Andy um and then maybe Andy or Eric on this there there was a comment about uh uh traffic kind of under the current neighborhoods where only a Model T if you will can go through and you know and so I was kind of wondering why the design is so narrow that that two modernized cars couldn't go both ways and I'm not talking like cyber truck width I'm just talking average car width right sure um so yeah all the roadways in in Rancher um are are designed to me code um and and buy code I mean essentially you know fire code right I mean there there obviously needs the the ability for fire trucks to to make it through these so from a life safety standpoint you know the fire department uh police department even you know review all of these tenative Maps um the minimum roadway W minimum roadway widths that we have in ranchera uh comply with the fire code and so um you know in Village six um which is just to the south of us um yes they have narrow road ways it does accommodate for two cars with no parking on the street um a lot of the streets in Rancher are narrower um for for a few different reasons one you know we really were trying to um uh encourage slower speeds um you'll if you know we drive around most of the the um most of the roadways through there are signed for 15 miles an hour which you know your normal local street is 25 miles an hour um so there was really a concerted effort to you know make the streets narrower make them slower speeds um not have a lot of of parking on them all of all the streets in Rancher are private streets so they're not maintained by the city um they're maintained by the homers Association so you know overall less maintenance for the homeowners association over time uh and so where we do have those narrower streets we did you know try to strategically locate additional parking through out um as was you know shown on the overhead and I don't know if we can bring up the our presentation I just wanted to point out you know one of the public comments said we only had maybe six parking spaces that's not correct um I'll go to this one and if I does the mouse work um it if you sorry no mouse isn't working um so you'll notice you know there's there's a number of little parking Pockets that are provided off of kind of the Main Street there but if you look a little closely into each of the alleys each of those alleys has two parking spaces at the end of The Alley so you know all those homes say along the northern boundary there at the top of the screen they'll have two parking spaces in their garage and then there's additional two parking spaces that would be shared between those two units um thanks for zooming in um and then if you look at you know some of the other Alleyways there there's a number of little parking spaces that we tried to incorporate into the alleys themselves to make it convenient so that that parking wasn't you know located in a parking lot on one side of the of the development it's located and dispersed throughout for convenience yeah you can kind of see the little stripe spaces in in each of those alleys great thank you Andy just to follow up on that um the theme of traffic there there there was some input about uh construction traffic kind of cutting through existing neighborhoods and all um if that's the case uh would you all be amenable just guiding construction traffic elsewhere yeah I would anticipate construction traffic for this is going to use Falabella would you know and yes we can kind of have that educational aspect of you know for the contractors as part of this um you know as you know homeowners move in and have you know things done to their homes you know yeah there may be contractors that are pulling up on the curb we really can't I you know this this developer really can't do much about that that's an HOA issue um that they probably need to enforce great thank you Andy you bet y all right looks like we might want to move into discussion commissioner Munoz uh thank you commission for the record so um I kind of want to reiterate the sediments of uh the lower density um we are in a huge housing crisis in Reno in Nevada Northern Nevada as a whole and um at the same point and at the same at the same time I do understand the frustration of the traffic um I also understand that uh this is isn't a brand new plan this has been planned out for years now uh the residents when they did purchase these homes knew there was a possibility of 310 units being built there um maybe it's hard to foresee uh the way the traffic is going to affect and people actually live there but this isn't a new development this is something we've been dealing with is something that's been coming up for years um and I don't see that changing and I don't see us uh having the ability to modify this project to make it um not have these issues so I the way it stands now I would have lik to seen a little bit more uh density but I do understand uh the reasoning behind it it does make sense to me and I do agree with it so I will be supporting this project thank you CH thank you commissioner Armstrong thank you chair uh I largely agree with commissioner Munos um I'm not quite as fuss as the lower density I I just understand the economic environment it's I think it would be really challenging to to go with the original Vision it is a bit disappointing but I'm happy to see that there is still development planned for that area that they found a solution um because we do have a housing crisis and it's important that we continue to address that uh I also agree this has been a project that's been around for a decade and I think when you you know purchaseing a new development it's reasonable to assume that you know more development is going to come online especially when it gets approved for you know over 700 units so I'll also be supporting this project and I can make [Music] findings commissioner draulic um I get the traffic concerns I've driven through all that a dozen times especially with construction going um it's a nightmare when the construction is going on the new homes but that does come to an end at time and I I respect your frustration during that um so I don't have much that really can be done for that I think they've done enough here but on the parking I actually thought this was very ample to have three per unit I I don't see this subdivision or this Village to actually have more than two cars per building um I don't really see this yielding to adults and two kids with cars I mean maybe there'll be some exceptions to that but I think parking is more than adequate um for each unit so um that's my take I will be supporting this project and seeing no other disc oh commissioner R please yeah I I do have some discussion I I'm really disappointed at the decrease in density not only for the fact that Reno is short on housing Supply but also for the long-term sustainability for the village which is an asset to not only Ranch Hera all of Reno I mean people really seek that out as a place to eat and gather um so that's a little disappointing I understand the market shifted and and these are the consider ations that have to be made um the Urban Design of Village 7 is highly car Centric uh I don't personally like when I see half the site devoted to surface transportation and half the site devoted to slabs feels very sort of autod dependent um and I don't think that was the goal of ranchera its intention was to like walkable and get people in their car out of their cars and on their bikes and on their feet um I also didn't appreciate the misalignment of some of those Hammerheads I think that could be cleaned up maybe as you go to final map or go back to the office that's easy to do um those K turns and hammerheads can be inconvenient but maybe they'll encourage more pedestrian activity instead so I'm going to be optimistic and yeah I just would encourage the neighbors uh residents if you will um you know this project is planned and it's planned for a lot more density and has come before us so I'm going to support it uh but I also encourage you to empower yourselves you seem highly organized you're you're here tonight and I appreciate that and I'd encourage you uh you know you have the power to hire professionals to represent yourselves don't just always rely on developers or the city or even the Planning Commission to represent uh everybody's interests it's very hard to have the actual knowledge having not live there myself so thank you for coming tonight commissioner B please sure I'll just keep mine brief just Echo um commissioner Ro Meer dracul Armstrong uh the rest of the body's sentiments uh I'll be in support I think it's good to have these conversations to highlight these growing pains and hopefully we pivot and address those over time uh because what we plan for today for tomorrow for next year is not necessarily what's always going to happen because the economy changes or life just happens but um it's good to have these conversations so we can be informed and pivot as we need to so I'll be in support great and if someone wants to deliver a motion commissioner belto I'll make a motion thank you in the matter of case number LDC 24- 0046 based on compliance the applicable findings I move to approve the tentative map subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings could you include the addition of condition number 15 in your motion my apologies with the addition of condition number 15 thank you for the reminder Michelle all right we have a motion commissioner Armstrong I'll second we have a motion in a second any further discussion okay all in favor I I I any opposed hearing none motion passes unanimously good luck with your project you read the um appeal process into the record please oh of course yeah one second where's the appeal appeal oh sorry appeal process any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Reno city council by the applicant the mayor or a city council member or any person who is AG grieved by the action or inaction an appeal together with fees must be filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk all right thank you you bet we'll now move on to item number six trucky Meadows Regional planning liaison report and folks if you guys don't mind moving your conversation to the lobby that'd be great yeah you're fine who we got oh oh commissioner verm commissioner verer we had a meeting uh last Thursday and in that we heard um one case for a transition from T tier three to tier two just to the southeast of Colin ranch or Southwest of Colin Ranch um and then we got an update on the natural resources plan and the infrastructure plan which will be forthcoming in the regional plan in the fall thank you so much closing item six moving on item seven staff announcements Mike go no staff announ announcements this evening excellent moving on to item eight commissioner suggestion for future agenda items seeing none close item eight move to item nine public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment Michelle request speak form I did not receive any request to speak forms no voicemails no correspondents and it doesn't appear that we have anybody on Zoom that wishes to speak anybody in the chambers wish to speak on General Public comment seeing none we'll close item nine public comment moved on to item 10 adjournment so moved so moved all right thanks y'all have a nice night you all goodbye everybody