All right, it's six o'clock, so we're going to begin. Um, we're going to open the meeting of the June 5th, 2025 Planning Commission, and we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Belto, kick us off. Thank you. Roll call. Kelly. Carrie Roier here. Sylvia Villinoeva here. Manny Bera here. Christina Delviar here. David Jockman here. Alex Belto here. Jacob Williams absent at this time. We have a quorum. Great. Thank you. All right. We'll open up public comment. This is for public comment on any action or for any general public item. Um do we have any comment cards? Uh I do not have any public comment cards. Um we did receive comments um for this item that were forwarded to the planning commission and entered into the record. It looks like we have one participant on Zoom. I'm going to read the language into the record and then we'll go to Zoom. Okay. Members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the Zoom link provided on the agenda. Specifically https colon slinks.renino.gov/c capitalp planning06-05-25. It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded 3 minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you'll be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Uh Darden Müller on Zoom, if you'd like to speak, please unmute yourself. You'll have three minutes. Darden Müller, did you want to provide public comment for this item? Yes, I do. All right, you'll have three minutes. Thank you. Uh I'm here to just make a public comment on the Mount Rose Junction master plan amendment and zoning map. Uh I am a land surveyor here in the state of Nevada. I'm a resident. I went to Reno High, graduated from the University of Nevada, Reno and quite frankly, it's it's really unfortunate what is being proposed here. Um, I really think that the planning commission has done a incredibly poor job uh with the Midtown area and spec specifically. If you look at any of the new builds that have gone up in the last 10 years in this area, these developers are clearly after one thing and it's just maximizing their profits. You have setbacks as small as three feet, which is just absolutely uh it's outrageous that that something like that can can be approved um by the zoning committee. You know, I I I I study NRS front and back for my job. Zoning regulations are in place for a reason, and I I can't see one good reason why a zoning change would be passed for this area. Uh a bill like that geographically does nothing for this area. Um and and I really hope to see um see this this get turned down. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional public comment? Next, we have Beth Dory on Zoom. Beth, whenever you're ready. Beth, if you're speaking, we can't hear you. Might need to unmute your mic. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead. Okay. I had earphones in. I'm sorry I didn't really prepare. I sent you all letters, but I'd like to echo what the last gentleman said. Um, we own a family home uh and my husband's family has owned it since 1956 and um we're starting to sell. We're seeing the ramifications of some of these decisions. Ranchera, I I met with my realtor today. This is not a good deal to buy in Reno. And the developer who I call Park Avenue George would not have put this thing in on Bar Lane. Would not have turned removed one of those terrible buildings and put it in in Baron Lane. Glenn Gray from Ranchera said it best. This is all about greed and I hope you don't find it what's the term um starts with a C compatible for all the reasons I outlined in my letter. Plus, rumor has it that you're trying to remove a neighborhood plan without public process. I never even got a I never even got a postcard. So, taking the public process, taking the nabs, Reno is not a good deal anymore. And the only reason why Park Avenue George wants that site is because it's single family homes, low lows slung homes. I can see that development is going to have a gorgeous view of Mount Rose and uh the neighbors below. So, thank you. Thank you. I do not have anyone else on Zoom with their hand raised. Do we have anyone chamber in chambers wishing to speak? Okay. I wanted to offer a public comment. Um and I know Commissioner Basera has entered a public comment into the record. I'll just keep mine simple and brief. Um, I was disappointed at the city council's action to not pay attention to the recommendation and vote we made as a board, a commissioner recommending um, one of our fellow long-standing planning commissioners to the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency Planning Commission. uh for no reason that I understand that uh or was given why city council would go against our vote um or not send it back to us for reconsideration. And these are the kinds of changes and actions that I'm seeing from city council lately that seem to disregard the opinions of this body. So with that I will close my public comment. Sure. Uh this commissioner Bisera just like to uh make a brief statement. As the chair mentioned, I did submit a written comment for the record, but I did want to briefly speak to it, which affects the integrity of how we operate both on this commission and the city uh leadership. Uh with the neighborhood advisory boards and other commissions on pause, we carry an even greater responsibility to reflect public voice alongside applicant and business perspectives. We should never be discouraged from asking questions or expecting better. That's not obstruction. That's public service. I hope we can all recommmit to transparent, respect, and a shared commitment to the people we serve, both businesses and residents alike. Thank you. May I? Yes. I'd also like to submit public comment. I actually didn't didn't know that that was the case. I didn't realize that a unanimous vote was ultimately um determined to uh was not sustained by the council. So, that is disappointing. Um that's news to me. So, thank you for sharing. Um it's unfortunate. So, um thanks. Uh, thank you, chair. I want to speak in public comment as well. Um, I'm just very, you know, thankful for the opportunity to be on this planning commission and I hope that we as a commission continue working forward and working together uh to make sure we we treat the city right. Um, you know, I think this trust with the planning commission is fragile and fragile for the public. So I you know I hope that while we can disagree uh we still work to preserve the integrity of this institution and with that I think we have to be really cautious about the perspectives we bring into the room and the things that we bring into the room. You know this isn't a toy box. This isn't a situation where we should be ringing along projects. Uh we should really you know keep those things as they say by the bedside you know just to use a euphemism. So, I I really hope that we uh treat these chambers differently and just make sure that we focus on the issues at hand. And I just really appreciate everyone uh coming out tonight and and being here. Thank you. Um I think I saw a couple of hands in the chambers. If you would like to come up to the podium and speak, I do ask that you fill out a com comment card so we have your name on record, but please come up. Thank you. My name is Derek Cromer and thank you for what you do. Uh because I think I overlooked that at times. We do have a lot of people working for us in our community and I appreciate that. I am against LDC 25-100018 the master plan adjust at the Mount Rose master plan and meant at I think you know what I mean sorry uh I've lived there for 30 years I live across the street uh I don't think this is in our my neighbors best interest uh in the 30 years I've had many people move in and out and uh one of the things they said as they always do is they like the area because it's houses not apartment buildings and I know we do have apartment buildings in our area and also on Plumis so I take that as a a need and presently I don't see the need there for that so thank you very much. Appreciate your help. Thank you. I saw another hand. I submitted a request. Did you want to speak under general public comment later? Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh seeing no other requests for speaking under public comment, I'll close public comment. And believe next we have a presentation uh training on noticing and procedures for public hearing items. Yes. Good evening, commissioners. Grace McAdin, senior management analyst. For the record, I'll um be brief. I know you have a large agenda, but this is just a training of kind of our procedures and requirements, both both statutoily and what we do above state law for noticing. First, I wanted to start with state law requirements. Um when you go into NRS, it varies for case type. So, master plan amendments might have different requirements than maybe a variance. and um you know zone changes might have a different requirement than a conditional use permit. So generally and um with code we've taken kind of more of the conservative approach to all of these so that we can keep them more consistent. Um generally it involves a newspaper publication 10 days prior to the hearing, a mailed public noticed 10 days prior to that hearing and we'll get into the details of what that entails. Um, just recently, not this past session, but session before that, we're required to post those notices in Spanish on our website. Um, we're required to post them in any language that voting materials are distributed in. So far, that is English and Spanish. Um, and we're also required to post an incomplete list posted online. So, if you submitted an application and we deemed it incomplete, we have to post a list of that on our website. So, what goes into this mailed notice? um this requirement that's uh required of us of state law. If you live in the city, I'm sure that you've received one of these postcards for a development in your neighborhood. Um when we get a development, we have to notice each owner within 750 ft of the proposed project, but that list has to be at least 30 individuals in separate individuals. So, if that list does not notice 30 individuals, let's say it's a rural area and you go 750 ft out and only one person's being noticed, we increase that distance 100 ft until we meet 30 recipients. Um, and that's very specific in state law. We did not come up with that and we don't change it every time. So, it's very specific and that's the same for every case that we notice. Um, we are also required to notice each tenant of a mobile home park within 750 ft of the project. Commander of a military installation within 3,000 feet of the project. And then, um, state law kind of sometimes mentions NAB NAB members and sometimes doesn't. And so, we just always include them on our noticing. So, whatever ward that project is in, we include those NAB members. And then these notices must be sent out at least 10 days prior to the meeting. So, some things that Reno does above and beyond state law. Um, I know that, um, people see these yellow signs out and about, that's not required of us at state law in state law. It's mentioned in state law, but it's actually only required for Southern Nevada. Um, so we have to send those or post those notices. The applicant usually posts those notices 10 days prior to the hearing. Um, we also have what we call development review memo and this is emailed out within the first week of us receiving an application. Um, and this goes out to the original intent of the development review memo was to go out to agencies to make comments on the project. Um, but we also include anyone who would like to receive these emails and would like to kind of see these development projects um at at the front end. And then we send out um something kind of newer. We send out courtesy notices and these are mailed out within the first week of um bringing in a case. What we found was when people got these postcards 10 days prior to the meeting, it didn't give them a ton of time to participate in the process. Um and so we started sending out these notices as soon as we could, as soon as we get these cases in. Um and it's the same boundary that the legal notice requires of us. Um and so that way we can try to encourage people to participate sooner in the process. That's kind of a really brief um some brief information of what we do for noticing. Any change to our noticing requirements because they're so specific um would have to be an amendment to our zoning code or a change to state law. Um and I know there's been some concerns or questions about mailing to renters. Um that you know would have a significant impact to the city. It would increase our our noticing and that would have to go to um city council for approval. That's it. Any questions? Thank you, Grace. You're welcome. All right, we'll move into our development items, uh, public hearing items. Um, starting with a request among the commissioners. Do you want to handle the LDC25- Z0054 David Busters CUP in expedited manner manner? Please, Commissioner Velto's perspective. Okay. Uh, looks like we're all in agreement on that one. So, we will forego unless anyone is here to comment on that and wants to see a presentation from staff and the applicant. And we can go to uh open public comment. Were there any public comments on this item? I do not have any public comment cards. We did not receive any correspondence for this item. Okay. Uh so we will close public comment and go to disclosure starting with Commissioner Bera working our way to the right. Commissioner Ber for the record uh read and reviewed material and familiar with the site. Commissioner Villaina familiar with the site. Commissioner Delvr, excuse me, uh familiar with the site and read the documentation on it. And Commissioner Roer, no disclosures. Uh, Madam Chair, uh, fellow commissioners, madam clerk, I'm disclosing that Kimley Horn's my employer and David Busters is a client of my employer. On this matter, I sought guidance from the city attorney's office. I've been advised that if I pursue a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of my employer under NRS, I have also been advised that the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in my situation would be materially affected by commitment in a private private capacity to the interests of my employer. Accordingly, I will not be participating or voting on this item today. Madam clerk, please lodge this disclosure on the record and I'll step out of the room. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Belveltto, I I believe I spoke with the applicant's representative maybe a year ago. Yeah. If this is rep if they're represented by uh the law firm Saltzman Mugan Duchoff. Correct. Okay. Then I did speak with the applicants representative about this maybe a year ago. Okay. Uh, well, are there any questions for staff or the applicant? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Oh, can we put here? Oh, uh, Commissioner WR in the Where are we here? Oh my gosh. Uh, Commissioner WR, in the case of LDC2500 54 David Buster Cup, I recommend we approve uh the uh cup. I have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Velto second. All in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Uh vote passes unanimously. Congratulations. Thank you. All right. Um case number LDC25-000053, Schwarz major deviation. We have a presentation from Leah, I believe. Hello. Good evening, chair, members of the commission. My name is Leah Picotti and I am an associate planner with the city of Reno Development Services and this evening I'm presenting two cases to you. This is the first one. This is the Schwarz major deviation and hopefully this is as simple as the last one. So uh we have a project site of approximately 0.14 acres. This is located within Ranchera and the request before you today is a major deviation to exceed the allowed fence height by less than 50% which is allowed under a major deviation. In this case, the applicant is asking to extend their fence height by 9 in to allow for their 6'9 in fence that has already been built to be permitted. So here you can see again the zoning district ranchera planned unit development. Key issues staff analyzed in this case are general code compliance and compatibility with surrounding developments and uses. Here you can see the uh existing fence that we're trying to get permitted here. This all started with uh a code enforcement complaint of a strong odor and a tall fence. And these both came in within a week of each other in July of 2024. Uh code enforcement went out there and determined that the strong odor was coming from this dumpster right here. And this is the dumpster for the assisted living facility adjacent to this property owner. So in response, the applicant went ahead and built this barrier. Um staff did work with the assisted living facility. They put in some treatment options. They did some stuff different with this dumpster. Staff's been out there a couple of times. Code enforcement case has since been closed. Um, now we're trying to get the applicant's code enforcement case closed. So, here we are today looking at this. So, regarding compatibility, the applicant has received letters of support from both of the adjacent neighbors. Um, both Revel and the uh the owner there to the north. Additionally, within the last few days, we've also received several letters of support from other neighbors located within Rancher and around this property. So, on the board are the recommended findings. Um, the properties most impacted support the request. This, uh, slightly taller fence does mitigate the impact between the different land uses. Uh there's no special privilege here because other properties can also apply for the major deviation and staff doesn't see any reason why there would be a detriment to public health safety or welfare in this case. Therefore, the proposed motion is on the board. The applicant does not have a presentation tonight, but I believe she is here um if you have any questions for her. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. So um we will go to public comment. Do we receive any public comment on this item? We did receive correspondence for this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. I do not have any request to speak forms. And no one in Zoom has their hand raised at this time. Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment and go to disclosures from the commission. Starting with Commissioner Belto. Uh Commissioner Belto, no disclosures. Commissioner Jock, no disclosures. Commissioner Roer Meyer, no disclosures. Commissioner Delvier, no disclosures. Commissioner Belleneva, no disclosures. Commissioner Bera read and read material and spoke with a few residents. Great. Do we have any questions for staff of the applicant? Commissioner Viser, I'm happy to make a motion. Okay. Yep. I in the matter of LDC25-000053 Schwarz major deviation based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings commissionerto I'll second and note that I think it looks really good on the backyard that looks great what you've done uh okay we have a motion and a second all in favor I I All right looks like that code issue has wrapped up. Very good. Okay. Um, next we'll hear LDC25-0018 Mount Rose Junction Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. We will start with a presentation from staff. Again, for the record, my name is Leah Picotti and I am an associate planner with the City of Reno Development Services. Second case I'm presenting tonight is for the Mount Rose Junction master plan amendment and zoning map amendment to a specific plan district. So this subject site is just less than one acre and it's located kind of one parcel south of the intersection of Mount Rose and Plumis. This site is located within the Plumis Neighborhood Residential Core Planning Area Overlay District, also known as the PL. So, we have two requests before you today. And the first one is for a zoning map amendment. Uh, what you see on the left hand side of your screen there is the current zoning and the proposed zoning is on the right. So this zoning map amendment is a request from multifamily residential 14 units per acre to a specific plan district. Um within this specific plan district, the applicant is proposing to use a base zoning district of neighborhood commercial or NC. The modifications to the NC and the PL proposed within this is to increase the height restriction from 25 feet to 38 ft and to increase the density within the neighborhood commercial zoning district from 30 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per acre. And in exchange for those two things, the applicant has several sustainability options that they're going to add to this um to just in general increase the sustainability. And I'm sure the applicant will talk more about that. Request number two is a master plan amendment from mixed neighborhood to suburban mixed use. And um overall, I just want to talk about this for just a second. The SMU master plan land use designation is generally considered appropriate in this area. Um in terms of the regional plan, this area is located within tier one which generally is for master plans and land use designations with a dwelling unit count per acre over 30 dwelling units. So in this case, staff does support this master plan amendment to SMU, which would be consistent with all the ones to the north and to the west. Key issues analyzed in this request are compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding zoning and land uses, conformance with Reno municipal code, and conformance with the master plan. So there's a lot of things on the board here, but I'll kind of go through these. So, regarding compatibility, um we'll start with this top section kind of highlighted in yellow here. And this is the surrounding zoning. So, the parcels that surround this are MF14, professional office, and neighborhood commercials. All of these sites are developed for the most part with singlestory and twostory offices or residences or commercial uses. There's also a 7-Eleven to the to the back of this uh which is singlestory as well. And I do want to point out that if this was not within the Plumis overlay, the the the MF14, the professional office, and the neighborhood commercial would all allow heights of 35 ft. So, I just want to point that out. So moving down to the development standards comparison. What I did here is I looked at what is required by neighborhood commercial. What is required by that plumis overlay and then what is proposed within the SPD. And really there's only three major differences here and it's just there's a difference in setbacks. The setbacks are increased. There's a difference in density uh going from 30 dwelling units to 40 dwelling units per acre. and the height from 35 ft um within the NC 25 ft and two stories within the Plumis overlay to 38 ft. Now, let me digress for just a second. So, I have had this application sitting on my desks for seven months, eight months maybe. And I did not receive any public comment on this item until the last couple of weeks. So, when I wrote my staff report, I looked at the only comments that I had, and those were from the neighborhood advisory board meeting. And the the main theme of those comments was we don't this isn't specific enough. We don't know what you're going to build. We can't make any decisions until we know what's going to be built. So I added this requirement for a minor site plan review for any building height over 27.5 ft. And the reason that we picked the 27.5 ft is that with the 25- foot maximum height, the applicants had already applied for a minor deviation to exceed that height limit to allow for a 27.5 ft height limit on town homes that were approved 2 years ago. So within this SPD, um it still allows for those town homes to be built. Um, and it does allow for those town homes to be up to 27.5 feet. So, what I've done here is I've said, "Okay, if that plan is scrapped and we're going to do something different, the neighborhood advisory board is absolutely right. We need we need something more specific. We need to be able to look at it." And this minor site plan review enables staff to uh require an additional entitlement that will go um before the administrator to be reviewed for compatibility that you know at that point we can look at additional landscaping. We can look at setbacks. We can look at stepbacks. We can look at the design. We can look at all of those things under that minor site plan review. I think that finishes that. So that's one of the things that you'll see redlinined in that SPD that I added. So in terms of recommended findings, the SPD recommended findings are on the board. Um essentially the SPD handbook and RMC provide zoning regulations in accordance with the master plan for land use. Um does it conform to the master plan? Well, it has adequate public facilities and infrastructure. Um, it's probably going to maintain scenic public safety and environmental values, provide adequate open space for what it can do for a 1acre site, and uh that concurrency management system because all the infrastructure is already in place. Does it meet the intent of an SPD? Well, it says per code design and configuration will accommodate projects or plans where the design and configuration of the uses are so arranged as to constitute a single functional integrated entity. Um, from what I've seen within the SPD handbook, it does look like that's the direction they're going to go, but again, we don't have a specific project to evaluate. So, we'll look at that when that site plan review comes in. And, uh, does it address a unique situation provide benefit? Well, it does allow for increased density in an infill site. Um, with uh infrastructure already in place and um public transportation and walkable streets and everything, there are commercial uses within a quarter mile of here. So, I think that it does uh does meet that finding. The master plan amendment recommended findings are on the board. Uh again that adjacent SMU does allow for the increased density. It is located in tier one per the regional plan um activities and development compatible with surrounding hopefully uh unknown at this time but again we'll take a look at that and availability of public services. There's no change with this master plan amendment. So that concludes my presentation. The motion is on the board and the applicant has a presentation as well. Thank you. Good evening, uh, planning commission. My name is Brooke Oswald. I want to thank staff for the pres, uh, their presentation and going into the detail on a number of those things. I'll kind of take a little different approach and why Mfield is important, kind of the project itself. It's something we're kind of excited about. Uh, our team here is, uh, Park Real Estate Partners. Uh, that is George that you heard before. He's built uh a number of other developments in our town and is quite invested in in uh building and developing here and providing housing. Uh Odyssey and Engineering, I have Gabe with me tonight if we have any questions about engineering. Uh uh Gabe can answer those. We have Mike McGonagal over at uh Mack and Associates. He helped out with the architecture and a lot of the code and the form and stuff. And then once again, I'm Brook Oswald. I'm with Red Land Planning. My background is the landscape architect. I've been 20 plus years in the industry of site design and planning. Uh to look at the context and location over on the left side that is downtown Reno right there. Uh just to give us context we have Idle Wild Park, we have Virginia Lake and we have uh the wonderful golf course and tennis courts. If here is Plumis Park and our site sits right here. What's really unique about this we're in that McCarron loop. That is one of the priorities for our infill is within that McCarron loop. As we look to the side of Mount Rose uh specific plan, that is the intersection of Mount Rose Street and Plum Street. Uh Plum Street is a uh arterial, a minor arterial and uh Mount Rose is a collector. So this is a point that you would want to see uh density or that or other things going on in that point. As we come up going up Plumis or or both ways down Plumus, we have a transit. Uh so it it is in incredibly close proximity to the site. And then we have a great little commercial district. Many many of you know we have a number of services of haircut cutting, barbers, uh there's coffee shop, there's a restaurant, there's a convenience store, uh there are co-working spaces and and a number of things all along this area. It should be noted too that is uh that neighborhood commercial where they would be allowed um additional density and and that if they chose to do residential. What is unique is looking at this project across the street. This was built in probably about the mid60s. This is uh 10 acres on less than a quarter acre. So it comes out to about 44 units per acre. So this is it is consistent with what we're seeing. That density is really important especially in those commercial centers. That's what helps that economic growth of those commercial centers. The also another thing you can see is is the the parking and our parking is current that we're proposing would be current standards. The larger project site just uh once again quickly to go over where we are. That's our center. You can see our vacant site there. Just gives you a little bit understanding of what's there. What we're seeing is a number of flat roofs over on our commercial area. Um and then right behind the project site, let's see if I can get this one. is this is the MF14. These are current old single family houses. Most they're all uh have been rented. These are when the minor deviation came in. This is the uh properties that they worked with on that minor deviation. As once again, just to give you reference of where we are. Also, if you look at that intersection, it is signalized and you can see there is full tra or uh pedestrian mobility through that. So we have great walkability and pedestrian to and from the uh transit project site itself just under an acre. Very unique. We don't get infill sites of an acre uh from accumulation of land or everything. So this is one of those great opportunities that we do have to do something special. Looking at our big governing plans, it is that suburban mixeduse is what we're looking to change from the uh mixed neighborhood. Um there are those big plans that we are that reimagining our sustainability and then the bottom there is looking at our strategic plan. This is in alignment with so many of our infill and our larger goals that we as a community have put forth from walkability, proximity to parks, cultural schools, uh vibrant neighborhoods, inclusive communities, and that infrastructure environmental sustainability. An infield site by itself is sustainable. We've added additional sustainable elements to encourage that. But this site itself just by its location is sustainable. But if we look at the bottom fiscal sustainability of our city, using our land efficiently is really important. So when we fully develop and find the potential of that land, that raises um uh our property tax and other things. And as we're seeing some budget challenges and other things in in some of our municipalities here, it's very important we do it right. public safety. We already are providing our services to here. No additional services are needed. That economic opportunity, this allows other people who may want to be in a school or may want a different situation of a smaller home or a different opportunity or it could be a live work situation. Uh the economics in the community, uh housing or other commercial opportunities help to build that that area and that center. And then the infrastructure and climate sustainability, the infrastructure is in place. they easily can get there. And the arts and parks, as I noticed that we are in a a central area that has all of that for this community. Wh I went off and then our handbook on the right and our zoning going to the SPD zoning. Uh this is a zoning. It isn't uh specific or a site plan. It really is allows a variety of uses with a a set of guard rails that's coming under our title 18. as we look at a conceptual layout of the site and how that could work. Uh looking at uh the specific site is looking at that one, two, and three. We're proposing potentially there could be three buildings there. As you're noticed, they're moved to the north and away from that MF14 and the residential and really towards the office uh uses that we're seeing on the other end. Our access is coming in on Plumis and generally tries to line up with the access across the street there. We do have a fi the ability to have a fire turnaround to meet those safety concerns. One of the other things we should look at is that setback. The handbook uh sets a setback of buildings over 27 feet uh have to be a minimum of 30 feet away from the MF14. So, we already sort of put a guy a a backs stop in protecting those surrounding neighborhoods. Uh we did uh staff's um redline comments were in there. We went through those. We did provide uh comments back and and changed. The majority of those were in agreement. We do have a couple concerns just about uh potentially the overlay the conceptual uh language and maybe a use of an add a uh du in the property. We would just ask that we could work with staff to get language that were both agreeable upon on that. Uh that concludes my uh presentation. I'm available for questions as as needed. Good. Thank you. We will uh open public comment. I've received one public comment card. Do we have anyone online? Maybe we'll start there. We do have two participants online with their hands raised. All right, let's go to online public comment. Donna Keats, when you're ready, you can unmute your mic, state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. For the record, my name is Donna Keats. Um, I have u some response comments to Leah's presentation, which sounded like she didn't actually really want to do it in the first place, but um, you know, okay, she said she hadn't heard anything for months and months and months. That's because it didn't show up on an agenda item until now. The NAB, I'm the chair of the War 2 NAB. We've been waiting for this to come back. There was robust discussion at the NAB about this. we got very little information um from the applicant about what they're really planning to do. So, I have an issue about public process. I understand uh from Leah's staff report. She specifically says that um she can't in order to eliminate the back and forth because she's reviewed it five times, she's just going to take it to PC because they can't come up with anything they want to do. And I'm wondering why that's a good reason for it to come to you. seems kind of strange to me, but she also said they are quote unable to evaluate on and on impacts by changing it to this SUP. seems to me if you're unable to um evaluate the project then the motion should be to deny not give an S an SPD because this absolutely circumvents the point of an SPD which if you were to read the code itself there are other things in it aside from the slide that you have been shown and it's supposed to be a heightened level of scr scrutiny an expressive attempt of the city lots of language like that to get an SPD this SPD I am fairly certain is simply to be able to get 40 units on less than an acre in an area where it will be completely inappropriate tower over everybody. We have neighboring businesses at the NAB concerned about the impact to their properties and businesses. We had lots of neighbors and myself included uh wondering how you're going to manage this thing when in the previous iteration was 17 h town homes. Even that traffic was a big concern. But at 30 residents or a larger commercial establishment, given that you're less than 150 ft from an already overcrowded intersection is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. I don't think it meets the intent of an SPD. I think it's a way to override neighborhood planning and getting the zoning change because the NAB wanted to know why can't you get a zone change to neighborhood commercial and do what you want to do. Well, they're going to get more out of it if it's an SPD and the residents are not getting more out of it. And diminishing the quality of life for the people who are already there is not a significant benefit to the city. Just makes everybody like you less basically. I also um want to say that um the intent well the intent of the SPD don't appreciate that. Um it's just not working. Shouldn't override a neighborhood plan. So, I think what Leah did is say, well, I'm going to say recommend it, but hey, I'll put these safeguards in with a minor two different minor review processes here. I just want to point out it's a subversion of public process because neither of them require a public hearing. So, you have a public hearing now with no project. It goes forward and then people get yellow cards that are unintelligible. They don't know what the zone changes mean. They won't respond and there's no public hearing for them to hear a proposal. it. We don't know if the NAVS are even going to be in existence by then. So, I think this is just fundamentally wrong. I also think it it violates the letter of the law on many levels that I don't have time to describe to you. But, um, and I just don't know if I have more seconds because I surely have a lot to say, but if you know, you can't if the staff couldn't evaluate it, you should not be able to make it. We're over time, but thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. We have a second public comment. We have Darden Muller on Zoom again. Whenever you're ready. Hi there. Thank you. Uh I'm constantly hearing about these projects that in, you know, increase density um across the across the city. You have places like the red district um that are not even close to 50% capacity. You have massive apartment complexes going up um right behind uh 580 along Moana. You have a brand new apartment complex off of Longley again that's not even at 50% capacity. If you drive up and down Plumis all the way to Vasser in this entire region, you don't see a single build that looks like this. I don't think the developers are really understanding the impact that this is going to have on the residents in this area. In no way, shape, or form does this type of build geographically fit within the character of Midtown. This this area is so special. It's rich with history. And you have these developers coming in maximizing setbacks, increasing the height of these buildings. You're completely destroying the unique qualities of this neighborhood. And I really hope that the developers can consider that as they move forward. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next on Zoom, we have Pam. Pam, whenever you're ready, you can unmute your mic, state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Hi, my name is Pam McAdoo. I live in the neighborhood and I'm extremely concerned about this proposed development. This is a neighborhood primarily of single story family houses. They're historical. My house was built in 1940. there's a definite character to this neighborhood and to I I question what the point of zoning is if you can just apply for a variation from the zoning. I question where the parking is going to happen. We already have issues with parking with a with a popular coffee bar, uh, hair salons and, uh, pizza with people parking up and down the residential streets. Um, I question about the traffic. People already speed on Plumis Street, which has a 25 mph speed limit. Cars go whizzing up and down. Um and especially I question the wisdom of ex of permitting 38 feet in height on a building that's going to be sitting in the middle of one primarily onestory residences. I think this is very in illconceived and I also want to say that I wrote a letter expressing these concerns in December even though um the planner said she had not received any response. Thank you. Thank you. We have one more participant on Zoom, Beth Dory. After hearing Brook's presentation, I wanted to live in one of these things. Um, he forgot to say that the width of the road is only 37 ft on Plumis. There is no turn lane. There is no sidewalks. There is no bike lane. There is no plan to widen it. I all sent you a a copy of what Steve Bahella, a city engineer, said in 1989 that parking should not even be allowed on Plum Street in 1989 with that traffic. Around the corner is a street called Collope. The width of that street is only 30 feet by code. And I here I'm, you know, outside of my expertise, but you have a fabulous planning commissioner that can probably either agree or disagree with me, but it's only 30 ft. That one side of that street should be striped to help with uh fire getting through. And um we're in Disneyland. If we think that 40 if if this is what is it 39 units and only 42 cars what century are we living in? So um anyway that's the connectivity and certainly not compatible. It will stick out like a sore thumb. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have any more participants on Zoom with their hand raised. Very good. We have uh one request to speak form from Kelly Jess. Good afternoon or evening I guess now. My name is Kelly Jes. Um I live um about two blocks directly east of this project. I've lived in the neighborhood 44 years. My husband's great-g grandandmother bought the house in 1949. It was an orchard where they wanted to plant before. Um, if these gentlemen have ever driven down Plumis at either 7:30 in the morning or 4:00 in the afternoon, we can no longer get out of our neighborhood. We have to divert to Mount Rose or to Plum to get out onto Plumis. um this project uh besides the traffic, the fire, the density, um I'm concerned about the master plan. Changing the master plan to drop um a 39 unit apartment building in the middle of our neighborhood is is crazy. Um it seems like it also opens the door for future projects just the same. any one acre lot that suddenly comes available from somebody knocking down their houses to build 39 units in there is a possibility. So I think it changes the the um the flavor of our neighborhood. We are a community um and the reason that um Leah didn't hear anything from anybody is because I called her and she said no one has commented. I canvased the neighborhood. I print printed out leaflets and said, "This is what's going on." And my neighbors were stunned. They were like, "What is happening? When is it happening?" Um, what do they want to do? They want to amend the master plan. I sat on the master planning committee in the 90s. And we were very um specific about what we wanted our neighborhood to look like in the in the future. And not just the future for me, but I have um children um who live in the neighborhood. I have a grandchild who lives in the neighborhood who I'm hoping to give my house to when I croak. So, um I think that um we would like to preserve the nature of our neighborhood and a 39 unit apartment right across from us does not fit this master plan. It does not fit the intention of the neighborhood and it does not fit what our community wants for our future. We would like to be able walkable neighborhood. Um there's a sidewalk on one side. I just canvased the neighborhood. It's not walkable. Um you take your life in your hands when you walk down Plumus, I have to tell you. So um and there's no bike lane. So um I I would say that it's not walkable. It's not easy to plop this down in the center of it. And I would beg you to please take a look at this very closely before you approve it. You do we have any additional public comment? I do not have any additional comment. We did receive other correspondence related to this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the record. Perfect. All right. We'll take disclosures from the commissioners. Starting with Commissioner Belveltto. Uh Commissioner Belto, I was contacted by the applicants representative. I was not able to respond. My apologies. Uh so I did not speak with him, but I was contacted by him. And I'm also familiar with the area. Uh uh Commissioner Jockman, same as Commissioner Valto. I did not respond. Um, I also read emails in opposition to the project. Commissioner Roar Meyer, I spoke to the applicant. I spoke to some neighbors and read and reviewed emails. Commissioner Delvier, I'm familiar with the site and read and reviewed emails and the rest of the content that was given to us. Commissioner Villain Noea, I read emails. I think they were all in opposition. I was contacted by the representative, did not speak with the repres I basically told the representative I couldn't speak with him. Um I also drive by this street to and from work, ride my bike, walk um every day. Thanks, Commissioner Bero. I read and reviewed the materials including emails, spoke with NAB 2 members, spoke with the adjacent residents, spoke with the applicant's representative, and I happen to ride my bike uh pretty frequently uh perhaps even at my own potential peril. Thank you. So, now we'll have questions for staff or the applicant. Commission, uh Commissioner Jockman. So this is uh probably for the applicant's engineer and then I'll follow up with the um with staff. So the um the site plan actually would it be possible to put the site plan back up that that was an example site plan that we're just here to discuss an SPD. So it's not specific to this. Um however the uh the international fire code requires that you have two points of egress of access when you are at or exceeding three stories or exceeding 30 ft in height. Um that might be a challenge with this site. Um you might run into a problem with the remoteness clause. Um obviously we're not approving the site plan. I recognize that. So as you guys progress, are you comfortable with still require adhering to that requirement with whatever you propose going forward? Uh Gabe Whitler, Odyssey Engineering. Uh yeah, certainly obviously whatever uh comes to fruition here will be designed to current codes and rules and requirements. Uh this site plan was prepared because people were having a hard time wrapping their minds around just a blank zoning modification. So this is a concept to show, you know, how things might fit to give you a sense of scale. Uh I believe we've been through two hydrant approvals already and in preliminary review and assessment. Um yeah, depending on what height those buildings end up, obviously you see there's a a hammerhead style turnaround for access or the uh ingress and egress and based upon the uh the depth of the site, it's it's pretty small. Um but certainly and I guess I'm what I'm getting at is that you don't have access to the public rightway on the west side of the property. So right, you know that that your two points of egress if you exceed 30 ft would have to be on Plumis and that could be difficult to also like I don't have the math in front of me with the remoteness clause but that could be a challenge which could ultimately encumber you from getting to 39 units. So um okay so as long as you're comfortable with proceeding in that way then you know that's that's getting at the finding of public safety. So absolutely. Okay. May May we have a follow-up question? I'm sorry. I was unclear on your answer of how you were going to address that. Well, we don't have a product, right? So, this is a a conceptual layout. There's no building height. There's no elevation. There's there's no unit count associated with with this layout. So, it's this is literally a master plan amendment zone change and SPD to allow for potential development. It's a handbook related request. So, you should be able to answer this question. Maybe you want to think about it for a few minutes. Ask again, please. Yes. Uh because this application comes with a handbook. I think that kind of question is valid. Okay. Could you ask again, please? Yes. Could you please clarify how you're going to answer that? Two points of access if you go over at 30 ft. Well, it depends on the height of each building, right? So if um I guess are you committed to staying under 30 feet also? That would be a way to maintain compliance with the code. I think there's a there's different ways to approach the uh the accessibility from a fire standpoint. Maybe building one's not 30 feet tall, for example. Um, but if you have the appropriate access for them to stage with, you know, typically that's for their aerial equipment. So if if they could stage on Plumis and reach as far as they need to to a different building, you know, they don't need access to all sides for their aerial apparatus. So yeah, I mean it really depends on what the end end result product is, you know. to work with code appropriately. Okay. So, you're committed to adhering to the code, correct? As you proceed forward past the SPD. Correct. Okay. If I can interject, um the city planning building fire would not be able to approve a project that did not meet current fire access codes. Correct. Do you have any additional questions or we can take turns? Sure, Commissioner Ber for the record. Uh, let's see. Um, maybe one for Brooke, I suppose. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Or you can volley it over to Miss Leah if you feel it's more appropriate, but and I'm a proponent of infill and density. I'm just a little uncertain about the public benefit of this project uh as required under NSBD. Um I think it's section 18.02506. Um would you mind clarifying what the uh substantial public benefit is for for this project? Certainly. And I think I I hit that a little bit through that strategic plan, right? That's that plan we're looking at in that five five things. So it's that fiscal responsibility. So as we see this this property and the ability to develop this property right now, it's really hard to finance or make anything work. And so that ability to to do this helps to uh generate property tax and helps to fund our city and our our services. Additionally, I think the provision of additional commercial or housing uh is something we also need especially in a uh neighborhood node. One of the the things businesses build off businesses and density builds businesses. And so that growth and that economic growth is helped stirred by development. Um I think we have a vacant piece of land right now and we we need to use it efficiently. I think the benefit too of of promoting infill is that we are preserving some of those more sensitive lands. We have a lot of hillsides and wetlands and you see those before you all the time. We have very difficult lands. The ability to use infill is a public benefit to help uh mitigate some of that those other impacts. Does that sort of address uh it it touches on it, but I think the key word here is substantial, right? Under an SPD. So, I guess I'm just wondering what are the public benefits beyond perhaps what's already allowed under base zoning or the existing overlay which I think is neighborhood. Well, I think our our handbook and that's one of the unique things about the handbook. It provides additional sustainability things. And so, we have uh that's low impact. We're required to do some low impact development. So that reduces our storm water runoff, our our water quality. Uh we're we're providing um EV chargers uh will be required through different members or the ability to do EV chargers and in the future building it so that we can expand EV chargers. Uh we have drought tolerant landscape. Uh we are even though we think we have a lot of water, we're in a high water desert and that benefit of that. Um, additionally, uh, we are, uh, would be be required to give out information to this about our transit systems and RTC and a number of the other things. And that's really that benefit of of getting people to look at alternative uh, ways of transit and movement, especially as we see a development of growth happening. Great. Thank you, Brooke. And sheriff, if I may have a followup with staff with Leah, it's going to be related. Um, thank you, Brooke. Would you mind uh Leah, thank you so much. Just kind of uh maybe because it's pre my time, I haven't seen too many SPDs. Um maybe jogging our memory as far as what SPDs have come before this body and how this SPD application stacks up with those in terms of substantial public benefit. Oh, for the record, Leah Picotti again. Um, so we've seen some SPDs. Um, I'm trying to think in the last ones that I've worked on would have been uh Heiser, which was a very large project. Um they had a different development paths that were certain acreage and that was going to include residential on one site and then the possibility for commercial and residential on another site and dedicated park space and open space. And I think with most SPDs we have um a little more specifics. Um, so the SPDs that I've looked at before are more of a specific plan of how this particular site is going to function as a singular entity and how these deviations from code are going to support that development and provide the public benefit. Um, another example of one that I've done is uh for Notables. I don't know if you guys are familiar with that, but that's a nonprofit group here in town that had purchased a building and they wanted to be able the building that used to be a school and they wanted to be able to rent out the kitchen for commercial services. So, in that particular case, we went ahead and used the underlying zoning to create the SPD and then just had some exceptions for the allowance for the uses of that kitchen. That's what we normally see. So, I don't I I don't necessarily look at as at as an SPD as a zone in itself, but it's more of an overlay that uses a base zoning district and then allows deviations from that. Great. One last followup and I'll uh lend some time to my fellow commissioners. You mentioned overlay and and I do remember that other SPD now actually I think I made the motion for supporting it. Um, is it is it accurate to say that this SPD is being used primarily as a workaround the current Plumis neighborhood overlay or Plumis neighborhood plan? There are restrictions in place within that Plumis overlay and the SPD is a way to get around that. Okay. Thank you, Leah. Question. Thank you, chair. Um, I have a question for the applicant. Um, so my question is why change it from um mixed neighborhood. Um, so mixed neighborhood to SM SM or I see I'm reading my notes. I had this little post-it. So I So it looks like we're changing it from a mixed neighborhood to Why don't you clarify for me? It saved me some time. We're changing it from a mixed neighborhood to what? Uh, to a suburban mixed use. Okay. So I was right. Okay. Suburban mixeduse. don't both allow for an SPD. They both allow for an SPD. Why why we're doing the SMU, which is you'll, you know, it's a kind of a runon of that SMU that we're already seeing is it allows for that additional density. Uh that MX uh limits the density back under that master plan to uh fewer fewer units. So the SMU at the SMU also widens it up a little bit more to commercial uses, some of those neighborhood services, some of those other things. Okay, which does bring me to concern, but I'm not going to get there yet. I'll wait for everyone to speak. I have one more um question. One of the commenters brought up a good point that I um and I looked at the code. Uh they said that SPDs are subject to heightened scrutiny. Um and so I'm looking here at 18.02.506 in the development code and that does appear to be the case. Um it says uh let's see uh express intent of the city to subject requests for changes in zoning to the SPD to heighten level of scrutiny during the review process and to apply appropriate restrictions to maintain compatibility. I think one of the things is SPDs are unique. Um but it does appear to be that one of the factors that needs to be considered is compatibility and and so given that circumstances in the in the request for quite a an an addition to the what was it 17 units originally uh so it would have been uh 14 roughly the acre but it should be noted the N so even just the NC zoning which is adjacent would allow for 30 units but with our density bonus you could get 39 units and so there's a very similar way to at densities within that area, right? It's it's um I think what is unique about the SPD is it provides those and we went through some design and we really landed on sustainability being where we could probably provide the most strength and and support back behind that. Um yeah, it does require more scrutiny. We've worked with staff quite a bit to kind of go through that and look at at at we've gone through a number of rounds to try to find where um what is appropriate and how do we find that compatibility. I think the back stop of the s the minor SPR uh to look at any future development that kind of hits a height that we're not already approved for. I think that's that's that additional scrutiny we're seeing from staff. and I will yield, but I just want to say so generally, as you know, I I am in favor of infill, but it it needs to be done right or properly. And um so there are some concerns here with this one for me. Um and I will get to those in a little bit, but I I'll yield. Thank you. So I have two questions. Yes. Uh first, do you happen to know the top of elevation of the what is it? The Redfield mansion. That's the rock building. I don't, but it's it's quite high. And even the the building directly adjacent to this, the peak of that building is probably well over 25 ft also. Right. Um I don't know how high that is off the top of my head. But so the Rock mansion appears to be almost four stories. Okay. um the way it's positioned from the sidewalk and I wondered why you've opted I understand the SPD for the zoning request because the neighborhood plan doesn't allow for these kinds of um simple normal entitlement processes, but what was the what's the justification for not doing the architectural the final architectural drawings at this point? because truly an SPD is really meant to have a handbook that defines the design. It it it is a plan and that the handbook is the plan. So I think um it is still a zoning. It could be mixed markets change. This property could be sold and it needs to be able to stand over a period of time. And so the zoning allows commercial to happen. It allows live work to happen. It has multif family. It allows town homes. It allows single family detached. And that's that's to give that flexibility over a period of time because this is a higher level thing. It's not a site plan. And if you had a site plan and then the market changes or something changes, now we're back here and you know this is to give that flexibility through that. Right? The height we really were looking at the height of 35 ft. The additional 3 ft could be accomplished through a minor deviation. We thought that bringing it before this body and getting the additional three feet at this time instead of having to come back was probably the appropriate way to do it to be transparent. Our density actually puts a a a block back on the block that says we cannot go over this these amount of units, right? We don't have we can't use density bonuses. We can't and that's done for transparency to say this is how many units we will you know we are asking for. All right, I'll yield to others. Thank you. Um, so I I want to understand the allowed uses under the SPD and I I don't know if I'm misreading what's in the staff report compared to the SPD. So I just want some clarification. Do you have a slide that shows the allowed uses? I do not, but what I can tell you, so the in the handbook, what you're seeing is just how we've modified the uses. So the uses that are allowed are what are allowed in neighborhood commercial, right? So that would be your service, your restaurants, you know, the limit, it limits bars. Uh we've gone further to limit some things. So we've limited any auto uh industry. We've limited asphalt temporarily. We've we've tried to do some additional things to go. When we originally started this, the the title 18 update hadn't happened. So there were some new uses. We had actually allowed the uses that actually came into use. So that is just a really short of a shorthand of what's allowed. So, it's what's outside of what's allowed in NC. And and I guess you brought up one of the things that I was kind of concerned about is I'm looking at this modified table of allowed uses. And next to auto service repair, it says it's permitted use by right. It should not say that. That's been a that's a a misstep in the the we were to clarify if you see the the box is next to it. So, it's it's not permit is not a permitted. Yeah. Sorry. Blank means not permitted. I was misreading. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay, understood. Um, so I are there more limitation like I where it's actually limits more and it does uh because we have a an approved tenative map, it does allow some of the detached housing and stuff like that. Yeah, understood. Understood. Okay, thank you so much. You're welcome. Um, these questions are for you. This is Commissioner Delvr. Thank you. Um I I talked to a couple of people and saw a lot of the correspondents and and there's mention of it in the packet itself about some of the NAB meetings that took place and they had some requests and um feedback and and I understood or they understood in particular that it would be brought back in front of them for more conversation. Um, and so I'm just kind of wondering what sort of what happened between I guess it was like last year at some point when the NAB took place. Um, and I know that currently the NABS are not um they're not happening at the moment, but even before then um when this was filed, I'm just kind of curious as to what what what was what happened at the NAB and were some of those issues addressed or are they still not being addressed? Leah Pakotti for the record. Um so staff did what we always do and that's that we took the comments from NAB and um the applicant was there and and was actually present at the NAB. I was not. So I just took those comments and I forwarded them to the applicant along with one of my sets of review comments and asked for those things to be addressed um as to why it didn't go back to the NAB. don't normally go back to the NAB. So, I'm not sure if that was discussed. Um, but we did ask for that specificity and what you see before you is what's before you today. Okay. Thank you. And then I had one other question. A lot of them have been answered already. Um, so I appreciate that. Um but again it sounds like to do um the SPD and again without a handbook and without understanding really what's going in there um it it's just it's hard it's hard for me to really understand and wrap my head around like what what we should even be evaluating and and understanding sort of what's what's going on. Um, and there's been a lot of questions about sidewalks, parking, width of the street, um, a bunch of other fire access easements. Um, and and is that something that's generally just addressed as part of the SPD or the handbook, I guess, that would have come with that? That's a good question. So, again, an SPD is an overlay. So it is really saying this is the NC zoning district, this is the Plumis overlay and these are the things that we are changing and and usually um SPDs are 10 pages of just something very simple showing the proposed site plan and what those deviations are. We would definitely see more information in something like a PUD where it's actually a planned unit development. It is its specific zoning district and something like that would be many many more pages addressing sections of code. But essentially with the SPD, anything that's not mentioned in there just defaults back to code. So the only things that they've really asked for here is that increase in density and that increase in height. And for staff, we have to look at this and say, is this compatible? And the answer is is maybe it might be. So I think for for the planning commission tonight, you're looking at this as essentially a zone change to NC to neighborhood commercial with the deviations outlined in the handbook. and when and when development comes forward. Yes, it is an administrative process, but it also has the ability to be appealed to city council and then if that happens, we'll end up at city council with a hearing. So there's not no opportunity for a hearing there. Got it. And then um again just to trying to understand and maybe get a little more clarification because one of the reasonings for doing the SPD now is so that they quote don't have to come back but they're going to have to come back for a lot of stuff it sounds like. Anyway, yeah, they're going to have to come back for a minor site plan review if they go with any building height over 27.5 ft. Okay, thank you. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, Commissioner Jockman. So, sort of a follow-up question to my prior one. Um, as a part of the SPD handbook, um, there are deviations granted, but can you please confirm for me that there are no deviations granted with regard to fire code? There is no deviation zoning only. Okay. I have a fear that, you know, we may end up in a situation we have a lot of SPDs approved that don't get built and then they, you know, maybe it could sacrifice on density uh or or or increase cost to the developer. And obviously this project has a lot of conformance with the master plan. It's an infill project. That's what city council is through the master plan looking for this commission to do. So I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you. Hi Leah. Um so I get that the the request generally they came to you and they're like we want higher density and and we care about that or we need an increase in height. And I suppose isn't it true though that if we the change from mixed neighborhood to SMU well isn't it true which we already got from Oswald that they both allow for the SPD that's that's inaccurate right mixed use but the difference here is suburban mixed use also allows for neighborhood commercial general commercial professional office um public facility so on and so forth Whereas mixed neighborhood again also still allowing for SPD only allows for single family 8, single family 11, multif family 14, PGOS public facilities P and the PD PUDs. So there is that that's accurate, right? Yeah. So I I think there might have been a little confusion when we were answering that question. So again, the SPD is only an overlay. This is a request for a zoning district to NC with some changes. So because it's NC and um mixed neighborhood does not allow it does not neighborhood commercial does not conform. It has to go into a master plan just like the same thing we just did with ranchera. Same thing. So it's a PUD. PUDs are allowed in PGOS but they have to change that master plan to conform to what the proposed uses are. um you're going to see another one here in a couple of months. Same thing, master plan to conform to that underlying district of the SPD, but that is an entitlement, right? So, if they decide in the future or they sell, someone else now has that entitlement. That master plan is is is essentially a permanent thing. So, should that be um uh should that be adopted, it'll go to Truckucky Meadows Regional and then they'll in turn adopt that and then the master plan will become SMU on that property which could then allow for somebody in the future to reszone that property to something that conforms to that like general commercial. Oh. Oh, yeah. I mean, I guess and that's my point. What it's getting what I'm getting at is our approval here is far reaching and not just to this application. So, if they if they sell or if they sell, they decided they can't make the numbers work. They sell, we may have, I don't know, anything from a coffee shop to I didn't check at the zoning, but I'm going to take a wild guess here, an auto shop or something like that. U probably not an auto shop, but basically something like that. Um, it the master plan would allow for the property to in the future be reszoned to a more intense zoning district like general commercial or something like that. Yes, it would. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Ber for the record. Hey, Leah, maybe a couple follow-ups for you. Um, all SPD related, of course. Um, how does this SPD reconcile with the protections the Plymouth neighborhood uh overlay was designed to uphold, especially with its explicit height in design requirements? And I know you dug into it, but how does it reconcile? I think that's a fabulous question for the applicant. Okay. You want me to rephrase or repeat it? No, no, I understand what you're what you're trying to get at is how how did we how did we address it? And maybe that is to look at, you know, we we have been looking at some of these these neighborhood overlays and they are important. They were done at different times, but we're also a changing city and maybe they should change too. They weren't updated when we did Title 18, right? That was kind of a a big broad sweep of Title 18 that made some pretty big changes and some things. The neighborhood plans weren't updated at that time, right? So, there's sort of this legacy that's maybe not quite matching up to Title 18 because it's changed and we have these these overlays. I would suggest that we start to look at those overlays and look at their appropriateness as we continue to grow. Um, I'm not trying to dismiss the the the the question of of how we did, but um, we we looked at NC and we looked at an NC and then going through minor deviations or other things to try or using density bonuses to to look at different ways to accomplish different things. Um we found that the SPD really provided the ability to give clarity uh for one. Um but it it does remove it is the only mechanism that I know of right now that that legally can remove the overlay from that specific parcel. And so that was part of the the intent uh was to remove that because maybe it maybe it is not appropriate and that's something before this body to determine if those overlays are appropriate. Great. Thank you, Brooke. So, that does team me up for a follow-up. You might be in a precarious situation because you were former staff, but uh feel free to kick it over to uh Leah as well. I guess the question is, do you know when was the last time the this particular neighborhood plan was reviewed and updated? Uh, I'm going back that it's I I'm I'm not quite sure and I'm not sure if anyone is if Carter probably would know more than anyone of of when some of the neighborhoods I think they're going back to the 80s and 90s of a number of those. Okay. So then as a maybe follow-up question or perhaps just fter for thought for those interested and you know upcoming deliberation would it make more sense to review the neighborhood plan with residents in like good faith to kind of see what works maybe what needs to be adapted so we don't have to go through these workarounds and it can save you and your client and future applicants uh money and time. Yeah. No, I think there would be a clarity, you know, to the public, to the developer, and everyone to start to relook at those and see what is appropriate now versus maybe 30 years ago. Right. And then that way there's input from the residents to see what they they want and so forth. Okay. Exactly. Great. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Delvr, I think my questions might be for you, Leah. Sorry. Um, I just want a little clarification on what what could they potentially do now with the piece of property that's there like 30 units, 17. I know it was approved for 17 a while ago, but what could they potentially do now? Um, well, right, Leakotti, for the record, uh, right now the zoning is multifamily, 14 units per acre. So, being that they're just shy of an acre, I think what happened in the tenative map was they might have used a density bonus to get it, but I'm not 100% sure. Um, but I believe 18 units were approved under that. Uh, density bonuses are allowed for smaller units within certain zoning districts. Uh the multifamily zoning districts are one of those districts that does allow for density bonuses. Neighborhood commercial is not. So we don't allow density bonuses in neighborhood commercial anyways. Um but it could be allowed under the um multifamily. And then I think that the most they could probably do would be an 80% increase. And if I'm thinking about this correctly, I think it's uh units under 800 square feet might qualify for uh for an 80% increase. So they could get somewhere around 25 units somewhere around there. And is there and now this is probably for the applicant like is there a reason why 40 is the potential number or is it again just to have flexibility or again not not for you Leah? Thank you. You know, I think so there is that tool that the density bonus, but as was mentioned, those are 800 square foot units. Those are very select, right? And this is a neighborhood that maybe that's not as appropriate. You know, this is if if it does end up being a multif family, a two-bedroom where a family could take, you know, a small family could have their kids going to school in the neighborhood or something like that. And so, um, that's that's probably a big reason why that density and the density bonuses don't work. I mean the density bonus I think work well in much more urban area more of the urbanized areas and stuff like that. And so that's why we've sort of chosen that that other route of of looking at how how can we uh fundamentally and setting a density and once again this is just we continue to talk about the multif family and it may be but it could be town homes it could be a number of other things still. Got it. So and then one more question we sort of came up a couple of times so we didn't really address it. I'm just trying to understand what the parking situation. Sure. Our our parking uh just reverts back to uh code parking. So we have not asked for any sort of reduction in any of our parking. So your parking for a commercial may be different is going to be different than multifamily which would be different than like a town home like the types of parking. But we will meet code and we don't know because we don't know what's we we we don't Yeah. Okay. So but but it will meet code, right? and everything will be they've already set the standards and we're willing to meet those standards. Thank you. Mhm. If I could just clarify for the record that the maximum density bonus would be 45% and that's dependent on unit size and any additional questions. Do we want to move to discussion? Okay. All right, Commissioner. Commissioner Sir, happy to uh tee us up a little bit. Um I I do want to acknowledge that um you know, I do appreciate that the applicants coming forward with substantial sustainability initiatives, you know, and on their own. That's really nice. Uh at the same time, I I wish that that wasn't a above and beyond request, but that's going to be for a separate matter. But I do want to acknowledge that that's that's good. Uh I'm concerned that uh a lot of time has been put into finding a workaround um for this for the existing neighborhood plan or overlay instead of perhaps revisiting the overlay with residents to bring it up to speed with current needs from both residents, city needs, with housing and just current times. I feel that uh we're it's a missed opportunity for the applicant and for residents and it's a good opportunity though for the city to participate hopefully in the near future to engage with community especially since it's recently committed to doing uh that. So I'm a little concerned right now. I'm not fully there yet and I'd love to hear from the others. Uh Commissioner Jockman. So, um, with any of these applications that, um, pursue the density bonus, that is obviously something that the city's looking for us to do. Um, I'm I'm excited to see that and I'm I'm inclined to support it. And as we've seen on other applications before this commission, um, when it's a parking deviation, that's that's a, you know, that's that's something that I've been willing to entertain. And, um, obviously, I had concerns about the fire component of this. I do not think any deviations with regard to international fire code should be approved when chasing the density bonus. So, um I I was obviously on the fence hearing from uh staff from Miss Picotti that um there will be no deviations granted with regard to fire code is is something that's allowing me to get to the finish line with regard to this because I think there's a lot of value to the community. The city council is certainly pushing us in ter in this direction with regards to the density bonus and we need to carry those through individual development projects which can be challenging at times. So I'm hearing there will be no deviations granted with regard to fire is is enough for me to uh be okay with us proceeding forward. Commissioner Mer, I just want to uh I do appreciate that perspective and I I think one of the concerns I have with that though is that um uh under an SPD I I believe we're expected to have something more specific uh brought before us. So while again I'm a proponent of infill and density, we can't guarantee that that this is what this project's going to deliver, right? And and so it's it's a kind of a roll of the dice here. Um, and so I I don't think what's being packaged and presented to us is what we're guaranteed to get in in terms of current priorities. And that's one of the rubs. So, I just kind of wanted to point that out that I do appreciate that take. Uh, Commissioner Delvr. So, um, again, I'm having I'm having trouble sort of understanding again why why the SPD without an actual plan in place except again to do a workaround um for the overlays. Um, and I appreciate um the other commissioners here. Um, and and again, I I I understand the density issue too, but if it's 45% on top of the 14, then that would be like another seven. that' be 21. So, it's almost double um what what sort of the edict is that we're supposed to be following. So, um so as it stands right now, I'm just having I'm having trouble and I'm really having trouble with the compatibility as well. That's a big a big issue and I heard a lot of people talk about that. Um and I'm still not seeing the substantial public benefit to it. So, for me right now, I'm I'm still not not seeing how I can make the findings. Commissioner Villain Noeva. Um, so I was looking forward to the original project um that had come forward. I think the 17 units. I thought that would be um a nice addition to that neighborhood and um it it established infill without um being uh a burden on the community or at least I believe that to be the case. Um, I just don't believe that this application, first of all, I think it has far-reaching consequences. Um, because of what's being asked, it's being asked to be uh converted to neighborhood commercial, and I just don't believe that that's compatible with this single family neighborhood. If you look at the zoning um surrounding the space, it's all single family. Um, and so I don't think that that's compatible. So, I have concerns there. Um, we're also, um, as was indicated by one of the commenters, and I thought it was a really good point, SPDs are subject to heightened scrutiny. Um, and one of the factors is to consider compatibility. And, um, I don't believe that this project does that. Um, I am generally an advocate of higher of high density, of um, infill, of walkability. I just think that this this project, we're getting a lot of promises, but there's no guarantees. and the consequence of an uh approving an application like this um it's unclear and farreaching. So I I just can't get behind it. Um and and you know um Commissioner um Jacquaman Jacaman mentioned the fire concerns which was a good one. Um I get that he's been able to move past that. Um and it is a little premature to consider those things but this this space is landlocked um on one side. I don't know how it will be able to meet the two points of entry. Um, and so again, that's getting a little ahead of myself, but um, and that may be a future conversation, but there are concerns with the site um, for this particular request. So, I'm going to be a no on this project. Thank you. Guess it's Commissioner Belto and I I'll give my two cents. Um, I've said before and I'll say it again. Uh, I think these neighborhood plans need to be sunsetted. They're not even as upto-date as the master plan. I don't think they reflect where our city is today. I don't think they're reflecting issues of things like EV compatibility. And so, we we've seen three projects here recently that have been tripped up by neighborhood plans that are out of date. Uh, that said, the SPD is really the only tool that I'm aware of that is available today to make infill happen in this location. Now, I think there's a real missed opportunity here. I do see that there's the height that's being requested. If you look at the finished height of the Redfield mansion, it's by and large taller than anything that's being proposed on this project in con in concept. But this was an opportunity to use the SPD to come in with a really beautiful site design that was nuanced, which was creative, that showed stepbacks and ways that you could be taller towards the back. if that worked with the fire hose, which I'm doubtful that you could do a 300 foot reach from Plumis all the way to the back of that lot. Um, but I think there is ways that you could demonstrate how this could be perfectly compatible with the older characteristic of that neighborhood using the SPD. So, by not doing that and just leaving it and kicking the can forward to doing a site plan review later, um, that doesn't give us a lot to work with. And I guarantee you whatever site plan review you're going to come in with later is going to get appealed to city council. So you're going to go through this tenant. You're going to go through this public hearing process twice without question. Um I can make the I can make the justification for neighborhood commercial because it is adjacent because there's a 7-Eleven in the backyard because there's a coffee bar and a pizza place and a recording studio or some variation thereof right next door. Um, so I am going to support this SPD, but I'm also giving you a strong talking to while I'm doing it because I think this is garbage that you didn't come in with a really beautiful site plan and architectural design. Go ahead. I'll give you a softer talking too. I largely agree though with Commissioner Roier's uh comments. Uh it would have been great to see the things that Commissioner Roer pointed out. Um I can make the findings. I think that this is consistent and beneficial for the community. I'd like to see more densification, more walkability, more a lot of things that are permitted under this SPD. Um, so with that, I can make the findings and I'll be supporting the project. Is there any additional discussion? Uh, may I ask uh staff one more question? Yes, Miss Patty. So, um, hearing some of the things from fellow commissioners about these various concerns, particularly that pertain to density in a housing project, um, you know, I guess I'm asking you to speculate a little bit, but do you think that the code itself will will force this future site plan to come into compliance with some of these things that might allow them to uh, you know, get over the finish line with regard to fire and other things that uh we don't have in terms of a site plan in front of us tonight. Leo Picotti, for the record, I think it's a great question. Um I I I wish we had more specifics. I I agree with everything Commissioner Roier said and it's hard for us to even do an analysis when we don't know what the project is, especially in a specific planned district. Commissioner Bera, um I'll just kind of make my position known. I guess I I won't be able to support this uh application as presented. Um, I agree with Chair Roer's points. I except I don't um I can't accept it to move forward at this point without those specifics. I think it fails to meet the bar of excellence. It missed that opportunity. So, I couldn't make the findings around section 18.02506 as required under SP for an SPD. Can't meet the findings around NRS278.250. 2550 uh section two in terms of neighborhood protections and um yeah. Should we go to a motion and a vote? I think it's going to be a roll call vote. Yeah, I'm happy to make a motion. Where do I put it? Uh in the matter of case number LDC25-000018 uh based upon compliance to the applicable findings, I move to adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend that city council approve the master plan and zoning map amendment subject to condition one and conformance review by the regional planning commission. And I can make all the findings. Commissioner Jockman second. All right. Uh we'll do the roll call. Commissioner Villanoeva, no. Commissioner Bisera, no. For reasons I mentioned in deliberation. Do we want to do the findings? Do I need them? Do we want to list findings? Um, so I can't make the findings under um mitigates traffic. I don't know anything about the traffic situation because I don't know anything about really about the project. Um provides safe environment. again doesn't appear to be the case with regard to fire potentially um but again I don't know anything about the project um master plan amendment uh to adopt an amendment to the master plan amendment is in substantial conformance um so I don't believe that to be the case obviously can't be in conformance with the master plan because we're actually asking to change the master plan um plans are in place for public services um so multiple here um I can't make the findings those are just a number of uh the ones off the that I've just reviewed. Um and then some of the ones from the zoning map amendment um particularly the heightened standard. I won't go through. Do I have to go through the specifics? Do you want me to keep going or is that good enough? Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Delvr. uh I cannot make the findings based on compatibility especially regarding the height and the dwelling density and also I have concerns about public safety and substantial public benefits that I just again to other people's points I just we just haven't seen them yet. So, Commissioner Jockan, yes. Commissioner Belto, yes. Chair Roireer yes. So, this is a technical motion technical denial because of a tie. So, I'll read the appeal language. Madam Chair, this this item because it is mash plan amendment and zoning map amendment will move forward to council regardless. Oh, excellent. Thank you. All right, we're going to take a five minute break for stretching. We're Do it. All right, I think we can reconvene. Um, so we'll jump now to LDC25-000049, Talis Valley Village, starting with a presentation from Carter. Oh, there we go. Carter Williams, associate planner for the record. Uh, good evening, madame uh, chair, members of the planning commission. Before you is a tenative map request um for Talis Valley. So this is a part of the Talis Valley planned unit development. Um this is 144 unit uh single family detached subdivision over 20 acres. Project is located north west of the South Meadows Parkway and Veterans Parkway. So like it's in the Talis Valley Plan unit development and specifically we're not there yet. Sorry. It's in the it's in the suburban mixed use master plan use designation. Um generally this uh project uh uh has uh general neighborhood connectivity um through the Talis Valley plan unit development as well as along um makes it makes connections through South Meadows um and it incorporates uh features of pedestrian and bicycle access um by condition. uh within the handbook. This is the planning area 22 um within the mixed neighborhood section uh or um land use category within the handbook. That category um generally uh promotes walkability and a mix of housing um types and densities. Um and I think that's represented well within the the plan. They're proposing two phases or two separate um areas within the village um 22A and 22B that have different um intensity of de development. Um generally the the density um is exceeding the minimum of I think it's eight units per acre and they're proposing 10 dwelling units per acre. Um and uh it's consistent with setbacks not just with PUD but also with the surrounding area uh with 10 feet in front, 10 feet in rear. Uh I'm kind of zone uh scoping in on the specific intensities of these uh sections of the village. So village 22A is 91 lots with an average lot size of about 3,800 square ft and village 22B is 53 lots of 5,000 ft. So that mix of mix of densities within the neighborhood itself um is consistent with the um goals of the planned unit development handbook. Another I mean the other um point from a uh policy level perspective on the tenative map was walkability. So this project is located within walking distance of Depali Middle School and has actually some connections even to the uh local elementary school Nick Picitus and it's near near it's served by the high school but it's probably not within walking distance. Um there's a new signalized intersection that's going in at Talis Valley and South Meadows Parkway that will provide access across the street. Um that's required to be installed um by condition prior to the uh uh construction or the first certificate of occupancy is how it's it's read in the um in the condition. Uh these connections tie into uh the greenway corridor um along Veterans Parkway that runs um all the way up Veterans Parkway. That's an established corridor that's within the master plan. Um, and they provided a direct access to South Meadows Parkway to provide um kind of consistent walking distances to all these uh these fe um amenities to the north and then access to South Meadows consistently throughout the neighborhood. Um there are many tenative map findings. There's 12 tenative map findings um listed in the staff report. I picked out some highlights um related to public services and utilities um traffic impacts um land characteristics including the flood plane soil um and impacts to wildlife staff has was able to review all of these and was able to find that it meets the proposal meets all the findings and on the screen is the recommended motion. Um I'm available for questions um but the applicant has a it will follow the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll hear from Eric. Good evening. My name is Eric Hasty. I'm with Wood Rogers. I'm representing the applicant TL Talis LLC. Um Carter did a really good job. He made my my job here easy. So I'm going to try not to be too repetitive. Um but just to give you a little bit more background on Talis Valley. This was approved in 2020. Um there has been a series of tenative maps that have already been approved. Uh Talis Valley East is currently under construction and several uh tal um tenative maps have been approved within the town center. Uh the original owner um sold the property at the end of last year to a joint venture with Tol and Lenar and they're bringing these tenative maps forward in the town center. So, village 22, which is before you tonight, um is the result of that. Again, I think we all have a pretty good idea of where this is located. It's currently on vacant land. Um again, looking at what was already shown by Carter, we have uh 144 lots divided into two villages. Um one appro approximately 4,000 square foot lots. Those have the larger lots, 91 lots included in that. Um and then we have 53 lots in village 22B which is roughly 5,000 square feet average lots. These are very similar to those that are uh existing to the south in the Bella Vista development. Um looking at this uh graphic here too really shows that um we are showing the backbone infrastructure that is uh proposed but this is outside of the village 22 uh boundary. And so this backbone infrastructure is being processed through a different permit and will be constructed and provide access to village 22. Um, as Carter said, pedestrian connectivity is a major thing in the Talis Valley, uh, PUB, and we are, uh, not only connecting to, um, with the backbone infrastructure, there will be a 10-ft multi-use path along South Meadows Parkway on the north, as well as the proposed Talis Valley Parkway that's um, adjacent to V Village village 22. Um and then we are within village 22, we are proposing another uh 10- foot wide multi- multi-use path along Veterans Parkway with pedestrian connectivity um as Carter pointed out uh to the east and to the south with the um um the emergency access. Uh this will provide a safe route to schools as this does connect to two um signalized crosssections or crosswalks. um one at Veterans Parkway in South Meadows and then the other one at Echo Valley or Telus Valley Parkway in South Meadows. So site access will be from the north. There are two access points uh from the north um one for each village and then or one of the village A and village B. And then um the emergency access this will uh onto South Meadows Parkway. will be gated uh but will allow pedestrians um access through that. Uh the trips that are generated here are consistent with the master traffic study that was submitted and approved with the Talis Valley PUB. Uh within the Talis Valley PUD we have the ability to uh modify setbacks u at the tenative map but we are not proposing that. What is propo what has been approved in the Talis Valley PUD is what is um being proposed for village 22. We are meeting that minimum D net density um that is also required. So with that that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to public comment. I've received one comment card from William Mantel. Good evening, commissioners. William Manel, for the record, I am a resident of the Bella Vista Ranch um development right across the street. So, I received one of those cards, but I was on the W3 neighborhood advisory board when this first came forward as Daybreak Development. And so, I've been around for the eight yearsish that this has kind of been floating around and is finally taking action. And uh I'd make no secret that I wasn't exactly a fan of it then and I'm still not exactly a fan of it now, but it's here so it's happening and I'm not here to disrupt that process by any measure. If you'd take the overhead, please or at least just capture that. Uh I guess I'm just acting as a bit of an archive here now from the history of this existing Oh. Mhm. I just wanted to point out that the picture in the master plan is or four open spaces is of this space where this development is happening. So I always thought that was ironic and I enjoyed that irony. I also know that this is a flood plane and it's a site designated as agricultural land of statewide importance. So, I always thought that it was also interesting that we'd cement that because I really hoped we'd turn it into some kind of southern ranch show Raf San Raphael or something. But again, we're here now. So, things that I'd like to ask and make sure you guys are aware of, commitments to missing middle housing, commitments to um actual commercial access, you know, that real mixed use that it has slowly been dwindling as these plans have come to be amended and amended. Um, you guys have made yourselves commitments or previous incarnations of this board saying that you'd be very resistant to see that decline further. So I don't I couldn't determine from what I read today from the entirety of the plan where that mixed use is an actual commercial dedicated space is now but that was a promise. Um because this is expanding along this greenway. I would ask for you guys to make insistence on really good um foliage and um use of trees along these paths that are on veteran because if you've used utilized those walking paths or biking paths over there, there's no protection from the sun whatsoever. So, it would just be really pleasant if they had that environmental design in there. Um, also for this site plan, it really sucks that for everyone else around this neighborhood that will never ever have any commercial space that they put their commercial space further into the development instead of at the front. Because if you wanted everyone to access or feel like they could have a place to be neighborly, it's not probably a mile into this development. It would be at the frontage to South Meadows and whatnot. Even if there is a gate, I understand. But people who live in those neighborhoods could have hoped to have come by once in a while. That's my time. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone online wishing to speak? I do not have anyone online with their hand raised. No. All right. Then we'll close public comment and go to commissioners for disclosure. Starting with Commissioner Biserero. Sure. Commissioner Ber for the record. Read reviewed materials. Um spoke with the applicant's representative and I'm familiar with the site. Commissioner Villaina, I'm familiar with the site and I've read through the materials. Commissioner DelviR, I am familiar with the site, read the materials and met with the representatives. Commissioner Roar, Mayor, no disclosures. Commissioner Jockman, uh, spoke with applicant representative and read email in opposition of the project. Commissioner Vzo, same disclosures. All right. Do we have questions for the applicant or the staff? Yes. Go ahead. Commissioner Villanuva. Um Carter, thank you. I'm looking at this here. Um this goes to the comment that we received regarding the commercial space. Um, on this staff report, it says under background that the Reno City Council certified or excuse me, no, it says a minor amendment was approved on March 25th, 2025 to convert plan area 22 from commercial development to mixed neighborhood. So, is that what the um commenter was referencing? Um, potentially. I I I wasn't technically involved in that process. Um I don't know Mike I wanted to to clarify the hambook allows them to move basically land uses around within so they move they did move the area of commercial I think Eric can speak provide some additional detail that but they did shift some land uses internally under a minor amendment process. Okay. What was the ma was I here in March during the March 2025 hearing. Um does anyone know anything about that? The applicant maybe just refresh refresher there wasn't a hearing for that. That was a minor amendment that was done administrative. Oh. Oh, administrative. Okay. That's why I wouldn't know. Okay. Can you just talk to that? So, was that just a shift like like um Mike just said? Yeah. So, the minor plan amendment there's specific section or there's in in the PUD amendment section and code. Um there is a um C like specific standards um that allow for minor plan amendment administratively. They met those conditions that they can they can shift around some of those those features. Did we notice that as well? Is that was that a part of it? That it was noticed. Yeah, we did notice it. Um a part of it, which isn't necessarily required. That was something that we did. Um but yeah, that that's the process. I can No, that's fine. I I didn't because I didn't know anything about that. I um so that that's helpful to add to the to my knowledge. Um so, no questions right now. I may have some in a little bit. Sure. Commissioner Bera. Um it might be for the applicant. Uh yeah. Hey Eric, just a quick one. I I I I remember speaking with you and you you did share with me that you guys had addressed some public feedback regarding a pedestrian crossing. Um do you mind briefly speaking to that really quickly? Yeah. Uh Eric Hasty for the record. Um, so, uh, again, that's outside of the village 22 boundary, but, um, what that was referring to is, I believe, the, um, Echo Valley and South Meadows Parkway, um, intersection that currently exists. And, uh, right now there are two left turns that allow two lanes to turn left out of there. Um but but there is no uh stopping on South Meadows. So it's just one stop sign in that way. Um with the Backbone Road infrastructure, um once the Talis Valley Parkway is extended from that, that will be a four-way intersection that is signalized and then that intersection itself will go from two lanes turning left to one lane turning left, one lane turning or going straight, one lane turning right as well. So great. Is that Yes. Thank you. you. I just wanted to maybe also give you an opportunity to to uh showcase how you've um worked in or listened to some of the concerns and found a solution. And kind of in that same vein, uh we had a member of the NAB 3 who passionately highlighted um some some feedback tonight. And I was curious if there are commitments to the missing middle, you know, commercial access and mixed use that you all are upholding or honoring from past discussions. Yeah. Um so with the missing middle, you know, that's a big part of the Talis Valley handbook and that's still a big possibility. Um right now there's 27 villages that are identified within Talis Valley. I believe this is going to be the fifth uh tentative map for that. So there's still a lot of opportunity for that. And generally speaking now that the um commercial area is moved up north to um a little bit farther north. Um the the the general view is to try to um get that higher density housing and missing middle um around that commercial center. And so I would anticipate with future tenative maps you would see um that those types of products. Great. Thank you, Eric. Uh Commissioner Delvier. Eric, question for you. Um can you show us where the commercial site is currently? Yes. Slated to go now. Okay. If we have the overhead. Okay. So, this this shows what was um what was approved in the last uh PUB minor amendment. And so, you can see that uh previously the town center was supposed to be around here where village 22 is on South Meadows Parkway. and uh Echo Valley. Um this has been relocated to the entire concentration now is up around village 13,4 15 and 16. And so that has better connectivity because this road, this um backbone road will be connecting to Veterans Parkway. We did have a lot of comments from the neighbors uh to the south um that they didn't there was a lot of people that didn't want to see commercial adjacent to their homes. And so that was another reason why we decided to relocate that. But now uh with this new layout, we feel that it's a more consolidated town center and works better for the uh entire community. And then um can you talk a little bit about the flood plane issues or fixes or Yeah. So generally speaking uh there there was um as part of the PUD um we had to go above and beyond what uh code first or what code requires. So um I think the mitigation is instead of a one to one it's a 1.3 1.2 25. I don't remember exactly, but um it's it's a little it's more than that. So the there is mass grading and I believe the 404 permit has been approved. Um so that has been reviewed by the Army Corps to change the actual U flood plane to be able to accommodate the new villages and the town center that are that are coming in. Any other questions? Uh, yeah, Commissioner Jockman. So, my question is about the uh improvements at Echo Valley, which Talis um is is it called the other name on the other side in South Meadows? So, would it be possible to bring up the aerial showing that intersection? Yeah, I don't I don't know if I have a Okay, so well, the the there was a comment that complained about uh safety at that intersection. Um I drive through that intersection five to 10 times a day and I'm aware of that. So there is that northbound two lane that um that exists on a horizontal curve where you've got a sight distance issue particularly in the AM peak when you have vehicles queuing in both the one and the two lane and that is detrimental to sight distance. So the the comment that we've received from the public there is is valid. Um I recognize that you're planning to restripe that intersection as well as the on the northbound approach. Is that correct? Yeah. So to give you an idea of what that looks like, I have uh this this graphic here will show what the improvements will look like at that intersection um once it once it's constructed. So currently right now uh Talis Valley Parkway does not uh exist and Echo Valley Parkway intersects with South Meadows Parkway. There is no signalized intersection there with this Backbone Road. Uh this will be signalized. So it will be signalized and then will it be signalized with the construction and issuance as certificate of occupancy with the first home on that part of the project. Is that correct? So it's in a way it's tied. So the um the backbone infrastructure is going to be put in in one phase and that includes this the signalized intersections and there is a condition that in village 22 um that that they cannot issue the first letter of occupancy until the backbone infrastructure has been completed and that includes signalization not just the restriping and correct. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Viser. Just a followup on on the tenative map. Eric, if you don't mind bringing that back up just as a uh followup to my prior question, where where would the kind of missing middle or higher density um uh units go potentially? Uh so the missing middle really has um there's a lot of flexibility within the um Palace Valley PUB. uh missing middle can really be in any one of these zoning designations, but specifically it's in, you know, the orange areas. Okay, this is multif family and then we also have potential for any of the commercial areas. Okay, great. Thank you. Question for staff, Carter. So, today what are we what what's what is it that we're looking at? So I know I can keep my I can keep scope reigned in and really focus on kind of the questions before me. What is it that we're considering? We're considering just I mean the the tenative map specific to these4 144 lots that are being proposed in village 22. And so what would a review like that look like? So am I just um considering I mean if you were reviewing this if you were me what should I be looking at pursuant to the handbook right now mixed neighborhood is intended for explicitly for residential. So um and I I kind of noted those goals in that mixed neighborhood land use category walkability and um uh mix of intensities. Those are the that's the two primary things um that they draw from the master plan um from a policy perspective. Um generally this this one actually is probably one of the least intensive sites relative to other um parts of the PUD. I mean relative like the PUD considers I mean mercury mitigation it considers um uh wetland mitigation like this specific site is is already a part of a I mean it's already been developed part of the larger scheme that has already been yeah the larger scheme has already been analyzed from especially the drainage I mean drainage is one big thing that was this whole beauty was in the critical flood pool they've done a map revision that pulled everything out of it like a lot of the work has already been done through the mass grading Um, so this is really just looking at the design of the neighborhood as it relates to the broader um, PUB and and the and the existing context of the neighborhoods to the south. Okay. So those questions we asked were valid with regard to the commercial space, the missing. I I think that that was already considered with the POD handbook. I mean, this is we're we're now looking at at it explicitly. Just this is going to this is planned for residential. Okay. Based on the the PUD handbook. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Right. Discussion. Yeah, Commissioner Chman. Yeah, I'll say something. I don't think we always see a project a tenative map of this size provide a benefit to the community beyond just the confines of that project itself. Um, we obvious safety at Echo Valley. I think it's um putting signalization there will get at improving traffic safety at that intersection that will be beneficial to people who are not just going to live in these homes. So um I'm excited to see that. I don't think we see that all the time. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? Uh Commissioner Alto, I agree with Commissioner Jockan. I think they've done a very thorough job on this tenative map and I'll be supporting it. Commissioner Bera, uh agree as well. Um, and I will offer uh a a gentle um I don't know whatever uh Commissioner Velto and Chair Meer mentioned before, but just a uh gesture of encouragement to definitely honor those prior commitments. It sounds like you all are. So, good job to you all staff and applicant. And I appreciate the NAB 3 member for coming out and reminding us and sharing the the archives, if you will, for this project. and I'll be supporting it. Okay. Any other any other comments? I'll entertain a motion. Happy to make a motion, Commissioner Burer. In the matter of case number LDC25-000049 based upon compliance with the applicable findings. I move to approve the tenative map subject to conditions listed in the staff report and I can make the findings. Commissioner Delvier, I second. All right. mission. Um, a motion and second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Nope. Congratulations. Passes unanimously. Great. LDC25-000055, High Desert Paving Storage Yard. So, it looks like we're going to start with a presentation from Jeff. All right. Uh, good evening, planning commissioners. Jeff Foster, associate planner. For the record, tonight I am bringing you LDC 25-55, as Chair Roar Meer just indicated, the high desert paving storage yard. Uh the project site is about 5.31 acres in size. Uh located on the north side of North Virginia Street, about 2200 ft east of its intersection with Ste Boulevard. It's currently developed with the Web Mobile Home Park. Um the surrounding land uses include an industrial business park to the north and west, a warehouse building to the east, and to the south, uh within the site, you have mobile homes and a vacant area within that parcel. And then to the south further across North Virginia Street is a warehouse building. The request before you tonight is a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage associated with a maintenance, repair, and renovation business, i.e. a contractor's yard. So, as we turn to this slide, um the uh owner fenced off uh in an unused portion of the parcel in two separate areas for lease. One of them is shown in the circle here or the I guess that's an oval, right? An oval here. Um the applicant leased an approximately 11,200 ft area at the northern end in the red box there. um but did not obtain a conditional use permit prior to establishing operations. The requirement for a CUP was identified during the business license application process. Uh key issues that staff analyzed are compatibility with surrounding uses, site operations and layout and operational impacts. The master plan land use designation is industrial. On the screen are five policies that support the proposed request. I note that I could have added a sixth policy, GP7.7B, which deals with tree retention, and you'll understand more about that in a few minutes. Uh, the zoning district is mixeduse suburban, as you can see on the screen here. In terms of compatibility, um despite the presence of a few mobile home parks in the project vicinity, the general development pattern uh in the area is uh certainly industrial. The applicant is proposing uh hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. and 700 p.m. 7 days a week. All work is done on-site or sorry, off-site. Uh on-site activity is generally limited to morning pickup and drop off operations. Uh due to the adjacent mobile homes, condition five is recommended to limit the hours of operation to those listed by the applicant. In other words, more stringent than code would typically allow between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Uh, since company vehicles must travel through the center of the existing mobile home park to access the storage yard, the applicant has agreed to install five speed bumps on web circle adjacent to the mobile homes to ensure slow vehicle speeds for the safety of existing residents. And that's required by condition 13. Uh and as a result of all of these factors, uh staff has has determined that the use is generally compatible with the existing uses in the area. Turning to site layout, operations will mainly include storage of company equipment and materials necessary for a paving contractor business. Company vehicles and equipment will be stored at night while employee vehicles will be stored on site during the day. Vehicles and equipment consist of typical pickups, skid steers, rollers, trailers, and other equipment used by a paving contractor, as well as a shipping container used for storage of tools, personal protective equipment, and the like. The site has multiple fire extinguishers, an eyewash center, first aid kits, and the applicant has ordered a dumpster. Uh, the applicant is not intending to have any hazardous materials on site, and no sight lighting is proposed. Condition number six prohibits on-site vehicle and equipment washing. And condition number seven requires screening slats to be installed in the fence on all sides in order to screen the proposed use from the surrounding land uses. Continuing with site layout, the MS zone requires a minimum of 20% landscaping. However, as you can see in the photo here, since most of the fenced area interior has been utilized already, um the applicant may use available space outside of the fenced area to achieve the required 20% landscaping. And that's per condition number eight. And then that tree uh within the fenced area, that large tree shall be preserved per condition number nine. As far as operational impacts go, uh noise from the project is limited to people entering and exiting vehicles, voices, uh pickup of equipment, vehicle idling, etc. Staff is again recommending condition number 10. Uh for vehicle idling, there are potential air quality issues from vehicle idling. Again, condition number 10, as well as from dust generated by vehicle movement on site. Uh the surface for all non-paved areas uh to receive regular vehicle a traffic is asphalt grindings. And condition number 11 is required for ongoing maintenance of the site to minimize dust generation and other environmental impacts. Here are the recommended findings for a conditional use permit. And staff can make all recommended findings. And here's the recommended motion. Um my applicant was supposed to be here, but it appears that he's not. So, not sure what happened there, but um he was not going to make a presentation, so hopefully I can answer any questions that you might have had for him and I'm available for questions. Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this item? We do not have any public comment for this item. We'll close public comment and go to commissioners for disclosures. Starting with Commissioner Valto. Commissioner Valto, no disclosures. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Commissioner Rormay, same. Commissioner Delvier, no disclosures. Commissioner Villaina, no disclosures. Commissioner Mera, familiar with the site and read and reviewed material. Very good. Do we have any questions for Jeff? Um, yes. Jeff, I have Thank you. And you know, I'm probably going to ask the question that that Sylvia hits on a lot, and that is um the concern if we turn if we if we, you know, grant this. Um are there any long-term implications again with like idling cars or pollution? You know, I mean, everything seems like you've got it pretty tight, right? Like they have they can't wash their cars or can't idle. Um but you foresee any longer term issues if, for example, these guys sell it to, I don't know, an RV storage unit or something. Yeah. So, um, the use that you're potentially entitling is outdoor storage, um, which has a set of use specific standards. Um, and so the that use, as you've indicated, is prettyly pretty tightly managed now, and especially with the conditions of approval, and I've got another one coming to you in another cycle or two. So, I don't know why we have a lot of outdoor storage yards right now. But in any case, um I think we've kind of pretty tightly managed them in terms of as you pointed out, idling, uh proper uh surfacing of those, you know, so you're not generating dust, maintenance of those surfaces, um you know, adherence to uh regulations regarding, you know, uh not allowing anything to seep into the ground and all of those kinds of things. This isn't near a river or anything, but still, nevertheless, we want to make sure that, you know, that the site is managed properly. So, I don't foresee any issues if this was to turn into some other outdoor storage use. It would still have to comply not only with these conditions, but with the use specific standards for outdoor storage in general that are found in Title 18. Thank you. And then one more question about the timing. It was uh 7 a.m. to 6 pm or I can't remember exactly, but it was seven days a week. Is that standard for outdoor? Well, it's just it's a matter of the business operating. Um, their specific uh proposed hours that they currently operate are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Um, by code they would be allowed 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. because it's just a standard, you know, uh, zone. Got it. And that would be for that would be for all seven days. Yeah. Exactly. So, so, um, they just happen to operate 7 days a week. I felt it was appropriate to limit their hours, um, to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. because that's what they're doing now. They didn't object to that condition. Um, and specifically because they are adjacent to mobile homes. If they if there were no mobile homes adjacent, I wouldn't recommend that condition. Got it. Thank you so much, Commissioner Bera. Just a quick followup. Uh it sounds like you got everything tightened up as usual, Jeff. Um in the vein of of kind of traffic and safety, do you know what the change in in traffic is with this um uh storage facility like what it was before and what it's going to be? So they they were not required to submit a traffic study because it's such a small amount of additional traffic. Um the engineer who worked on this application with me is happens to be a traffic engineer. Good by training. Um it's a dimminimous impa uh amount of additional traffic that it's like five vehicles in and five vehicles out kind of a thing. Okay, fantastic. You know, again, you you stressed this part about the mobile home and I'm just thinking uh you know, kids and running around and sounds like the speed bumps the the speed bumps are helping out and just want to make sure that there's no like blind spots or anything of that sort. It's a It's a straight shot in. It's literally Well, let me go back to Let's see here. Um, if we have an aerial of the full site, you can see you come in off of North Virginia, it's just one straight road going kind of northeast. Um, uh, and you can see the mobile homes on both sides there. That that area where they're the red area is, you know, towards the back there. So, it's just a straight shot. five speed bumps, you know, placed along that driveway. It It's actually It's a road, but it's a private road, and it actually circles around. There's a gate right there at the end of the parcel. Um, we considered and actually asked if the um applicant could have uh let me go back to the previous screen. See web on the screen to the left, the word web. So, that is the same street. Okay, it's circles around. Okay. We asked if they could come to their portion of the site via web um kind of going to the north and then coming back and come in through the gate at the north end and thereby not have to drive through the mobile home park. However, the property owner uh it's gated and the property owner uh for that entire development area would not grant access. Okay. So, we were left with, okay, well, they have to come in through the um through the middle of the mobile home park and that's why we put that condition to to include those speed bumps. Okay, great. Always your due diligence, which I appreciate. Thank you. I have a question. I have a question. Is it the whole parcel that's being designated storage even though that there even though there's mo mobile or is it just a I mean, it's just that fenced area. Yeah, it's about 11,200 square feet. So that the part that's highlighted in yellow, is that the entirety of the mobile home park or is that just the area that's going to be designated to store? No. So it's just So that's the entire mobile home park. And so in yellow. In yellow. Correct. And then the fenced area that the applicant is using is that red area. Okay. And that's the only area that would be entitled for outdoor storage. Oh, okay. So I didn't know you could. So you can compartmentalize a parcel to allow certain portions of it. Okay. I didn't know that. So in this case, um the does it require paving? I mean is are we requiring paving for this or um is that automatically required with outdoor storage or it is it is automatically required? Yes. So and and um if you see you can see in the photo here, they've already paved it with the asphalt grindings. Okay. So that's where you say you address the um dust was addressed. um the gravel and everything like that. Okay. Right. Um and then in the event to to Commissioner Delvr's point earlier um in the event that the outdoor storage becomes problematic because right now we know what it's being used for. it's being used for the repairs and maintenance, but in the event becomes um kind of a problem site with regard to like um inoperable vehicles um trash junk um what are some of the uh options available for those? Well, I does the mobile home I mean I don't even know are they tenants? I mean do they even have a say? Um I guess what I'm concerned about is because they that's a residential space. So if that's if this storage unit becomes problematic, what what's the recourse for some of these folks living in the they could just like anyone fi file a code enforcement complaint. Um so just because they don't own the property that they're still totally able to submit code enforcement complaints and they could of course work with the owner of the mobile home park as well to to resolve issues, but short of that they could apply or submit code enforcements to the city. Okay. Um, all right. Thank you. All right. Looks like the questions have been answered. Any discussion or a motion? I can make a motion. Okay. Jeeoff, can you pop the Oh, yeah. Sorry. Sorry about that. No, no, it's okay. Uh in the matter of the case LDC250055, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Raer second. Motion second. All in favor? I. All right. Congratulations to the applicant. Congratul. All right. Um, let's see. David, you attended the regional planning meeting. Would you like to give us the update on your first meeting? Uh, yep. There it was a pretty quick meeting. I think it went about 40 minutes. Um, I think you were there virtually as well as Commissioner Valto. Um, there's not too much to report. Um, not too much debate occurred. Great. And I there was a a office building on Arlington, I believe, is the project that we heard. That's correct. And that was approved. Okay. Very good. All right. Staff announcements. Just a few announcements um that haven't already been discussed this evening. Um first, the Stonegate uh master plan amendment and reszone was approved by council. So, this board had resulted, as you recall, in a 33 technical denial, similar to to the Mount Rose project. Um, council did approve that. Um, same with the Ranch Hera PUD amendment, which this board actually did approve. They upheld your approval of the Ranch Hera PUD amendment. They also at their meeting yesterday voted to support a regional plan amendment um or to sponsor regional plan amendment for the MV Energy highpressure gas line, which this board approved their conditional use permit. Um, we do have a new, uh, planning commission member starting on, well, their term starts on July 1st, so they'll be at actually the second meeting in July because our first meeting, July 2nd, is going to be cancelled. Um, and then Jacob Williams was reappointed, as you know, he was appointed initially to fill the vacancy of JD Draculich. So, they reappointed him for his technically second term. So, those are my announcements for this evening. Very good. Um any suggestions for future agenda items by the commissioners? If I can make weather announcement, we do have your your list of other suggestions and staff is working on that as and those will be coming forward as well. How about next time we get dates? Okay. Okay. To be honest with you, we've had some very full agendas and that's why some of those have been have been bumped just in the essence of time. Okay. interest. Um, Commissioner Delvier, I have a question and I'm not sure like where it fits in, if it's a future agenda item or what, but you know, the question of the overlays and um, the handbooks have come has it come it's coming up over and over again. Um, and again, it makes it hard for us because we're trying to stick with what has been in place for a long time and trying to base our findings on some of that, but also understand the need to move forward with, you know, whether it's sustainability or design or density. So, what what would what what's a potential um not necessarily on on the planning commission, but like what's a potential um resolution to starting to look at some of those overlays and working through some of that. It's just going to come up over and over again. I think what we could do is start with a presentation on on the overlays that we have in place now because there's several. It's not just Plumis, but we have Wells Avenue, we have West University, there's there's there's a multitude of them. So maybe a kind of a presentation of what overlays exist, when they were put into place, and we can do that, and then I think that could open some discussion on on potentially, you know, where the concerns or issues the commission might have. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Any other suggestions? Seeing none, we'll go to public comment. Is there anyone online wishing to speak? We do not have anyone online with their hand raised. And seeing no one in chambers, we'll close public comment and go to adjournment. Honey, I guess we don't even need a motion. Let's just call it. Have a good night. Good night.