foreign are we ready to begin perfect okay we're not called to order the uh Thursday July 20th 2023 Reno City Planning Commission meeting uh if we could start with the Pledge of Allegiance and commissioner Johnson will you lead us in the pledge [Music] thank you so much can we please have a roll call [Music] JD draculic here Paris Armstrong here Peter Gower can you say that in the microphone please still here Michelle thank you Mark Johnson here Arthur Munoz is absent Sylvia Villanueva here Alex felto here we have a quorum great thank you so much we'll now move on to agenda item number three which is approval of the June 8th 2023 minutes wait no I'm sorry number three is comment oh apologies I'm skipping had public comment we'll open up public comment uh this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment do we have any requests to speak forms okay 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 agenda is 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 three 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 will be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues with that we did receive correspondence that was General in nature and not specific to any items on this agenda I did not receive any request to speak forms and I did not receive any voicemails for this item thank you would anyone the public like to speak during public comment okay seeing none will close public comment and move on to agenda item number four which is approval of the June 8th 2023 minutes commissioner Gower moved to approve thank you commissioner Gower we have a motion do we have a second commissioner Bill and wave a second read all those in favor aye aye okay the motion carries unanimously uh we'll now move on to agenda item number five which is election of officers um so are the terms are up currently for the chair and the vice chair so Now's the Time for the election of officers uh for both of those positions um I am would be supportive of having a chair be commissioner draculich and a vice chair of commissioner Armstrong I understand that you know it's oftentimes the chair will try to go again for a second term I think that this is a good time to transition given that I have been needing to come to meetings on Zoom more often than I'd like and it makes more sense for the folks that have been here in person to take the reins and be leaders of the commission so with that I'll turn it over to conversation from the remaining of the remainder of the commissioners Mr chairman commissioner Gallery I'm in favor of your recommendation and I would make a nomination for uh commissioner draculics as chair and commissioner Armstrong as Vice chair okay we have a motion do we have a second Mr chair commissioner Johnson I will second that motion great all those in favor aye great the motion carries unanimously uh with that we will rearrange our chairs to allow the new chair to take over congratulations congratulations oh to knock me out will you put it where you do you have the report up staff report is that locked out [Music] my agenda yeah if you want to get it moving all right if you didn't say so already closing item number five election of officers moving to item number six public hearings any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard will need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary alternatively you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of this meeting we'll open item number 6.1 staff report uh case number ldc-00061 550 or Crest and we'll get a presentation oh from Steph good [Music] LDC 2361 is a zone change for a property 550 or crest so uh the site is approximately one acre in size it is an undeveloped parcel roughly in between North Virginia on the left and uh Highway 395 on the right and it is just west or a little bit West of the Washoe County jail facility uh and as you can see the general development pattern to the south of the site is essentially Industrial the request before you tonight is a zoning map Amendment from large lot residential one to mixed employment which would bring it into conformance with the master plan and no uses or buildings are proposed at this time the key issue is zoning compatibility and just as we've zoomed in here wanted to point out that surrounding the site are a mobile home or sorry a mobile home across or Crest to the north a vacant single-family home to the West outdoor storage to the East and RV storage used to the South so again we have a current zoning of large lot residential one acre in size which does not conform with the master plan designation the proposed changes to mixed employment which would conform with the master plan designation and I would note that the original request for it was for industrial but that is not allowed under the master plan because um that is industrial is limited to existing properties with that designation same as industrial commercial and mixed airport so essentially mixed employment was the only designation that was appropriate other than the other options were professional office Parks Greenways and open space public facilities PUD and SPD so given the industrial area and given the the master plan designation that supports light Industrial Development mixed employment was pretty much the only zoning designation that made sense and the proposed Emmy Zone would also facilitate future maximization of the property's usefulness here you can see the master plan land use which is mixed employment a few policies and goals that line up with the request and I would also point out that the previous master plan land use for this area was Industrial so here are a lot of uses that are allowed in mixed employment uh the Emmy zoning district is intended to provide a mix of employment focuses focused uses such as light manufacturing processing wholesaling Flex space research and development in offices in contrast llr1 zoning is intended to accommodate rural single-family residential uses and agricultural uses so as you can see the list of uses allowed in me due to residential adjacency the use is highlighted in green would require approval of a site plan review which is in which is an administrative review process the uses highlighted in yellow would require either a minor conditional use permit also administrative or a full conditional use permit with approval from the Planning Commission here are the development standards for both llr1 and me and again I want to emphasize that any future non-residential development would require a site plan review and additional site-specific conditions for compatibility may be applied at that time here are the recommended findings for a zoning map Amendment staff can make all the recommended findings and here's the recommended motion I'm available for questions all right thank you Jeff all right we will now push it to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Gower thank you Mr chair no disclosure closure uh commissioner Armstrong those closures commissioner Villanueva enclosures Mr Johnson no disclosures commissioner Dracula to no disclosures all right we all now open this up for public comment um yeah that was wondering was the applicant here oh I'm sorry I was expecting the applicant to go first I thought it was just sorry I should have clarified the applicant did not have a presentation and but is available for questions oh okay so no presentation from the application okay thank you that's what I assumed great um so now we've done disclosures and moving to public great okay uh Michelle the beginning of your quest to speak forms I did not receive any requests to speak forms no voicemails and no correspondence was received okay great to anybody in the chambers wish to make a public comment oh sir yeah do you have as the applicant if you're if you want to make a public comment do you want to submit and get your three minutes or just take questions from us okay but you would like to come speak sir okay and when you're done uh please state your name of the microphone and fill out a request this before so hello Tim lamdin with Ferrari Lund Real Estate also representing the potential buyer of this property uh also representing um uh several other properties in the area which I worked on including Reno Tahoe steel which is at 495 love it love it Lane right down the street from this um they're not all only uh business people that I've worked with but one of them is a relative we're very much in favor of this recommendation here we are ready to comply with whatever happens after the zone change and submit the appropriate plans also one of the owners of Reno Tahoe steel also owns one of the Tanaya Creek presidential Parcels also right in that same area therefore he's got a voice two different ways as a resident and as a business owner in that area um I don't I don't uh see any issue with it as far as compliance on future plans and uh would very much like to see this happen that's it thank you Tim and if you could fill out a requested speak form over to the right with Michelle thank you thank you anybody else here in the room wish to make a public comment Tim excuse me could you fill out a comment card please thank you seeing none we will close public comment and push it to the commissioner for questions of the applicant staff or general discussion looks like we don't have much to say We'll entertain a motion Mr chair Mr Johnson I've heard of a commotion thank you uh case of LDC 23-00061 550 or Crest based upon compliance with the applicable findings I moved to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance and I can make all the findings we have a motion commissioner Armstrong on second all right we have a motion and a second all in favor aye all right any opposed okay motion passes unanimously thank you good luck we'll close item 6.1 move to item 6.2 which is case number ldc23-00050 Evans Avenue coffee shop and it looks like we have the applicant here with the presentation representing the applicant great thank you my name is Kyle Fox I'm with kri architecture we are hoping to convert a garage into a coffee shop this is over by UNR we're hoping to promote lockability in the area um we are requesting an alternative equivalent compliance for um for screening we would like to go from solid screen or semi opaque screening to solid screening which would be equivalent and greater than what the requirement is and also we are submitting for a conditional use permit to um do a non-residential development in a residential area so I think Brooklyn's going to do most of the speaking thank you okay thank you for your time we'll take a presentation from the city good evening Planning Commission my name is Brooke Oswald I'm associate planner with development services case before tonight is LDC 2300050 Evans Avenue copy shop which is a conditional use permit and an alternative equivalent compliance the property there is in the yellow as you can see the UNR that's UNR campus directly to the left we are seeing large um the community center and the large Park area to the right there we're anticipating two development projects coming in multi-family development projects coming in just to the right of the project uh there you can see down the center line down the middle there that's a railway a railway uh just off Evans you have a railway and then we we have uh the the development to the the right which is a mix of single-family homes and Commercial development the site's approximately a third of an acre it consists of uh there's currently a home on the site uh with a resident and a garage they're applying to turn that uh garage portion which is about 450 feet uh square feet into a coffee shop and they are in for that residential adjacency on that the alternative compliance I'll go into a little bit more but it is a landscape screen and it's part of the constraints of the site itself that that lends that we are in mf30 zoning that mf30 zoning uh multi-family 30 units per acre but it does allow a number of less intense uses of restaurant being one of them um we're seeing that multi-family you can see the strip of multi-families this is actually a better photo to show that Railway line which is directly to the right of the project site and then the UNR campus to the left um key issues here really looking at that overall site design that compatibility with those adjacent residents and parking and access and conditions haven't been applied to this to to help to address those issues this is the project site itself the residents will remain on the right portion of this you can see the garage in the front the drive itself will be moved into or will be converted into the patio area the curb cut removed uh trees planted along that and so we won't have those backing motions back out on the street in that area um this is a little unique in that this was originally submitted as a minor use permit and a site plan review and then the alternative compliance came up and so what we did is just Elevate that up to a cup and brought them all together before you tonight several master plan policies that were generally mentioned with that pedestrian realm the neighborhood connections walkability looking at sustainable development and then the uh other uh pedestrian and cycle cycle connections project cited's house the the gray portion striped gray portion is the roof line of the house up towards the left uh top left of that you can see uh some tables laid out bike parking and then the that's where the coffee shop it will be itself in the back will be a residential converted to the residential parking and the residents will now park in the back um and then that rear is is the rear yard will become the residential parking on that so our alternative compliance um we have sec set standards within um Reno Municipal Code we do using this tool we have the ability to modify those and we're looking at what they're proposing is equivalent or better than than what we would get so they they have the semi-opaque wall with the trees at the 30-year linear feet what what is proposed is a solid wall um which will mitigate sound and light and then additionally we have Evergreens being planted at seven foot centers on that uh column near Evergreens which will provide additional screening along that that area we do also reducing sound like other issues um that will be decorative and staff has reviewed that and feels that this is actually exceeds our current standard of that landscape and the noise for that Mitigation Of what it's there for is that buffering and screening several conditions are have been applied for that residential adjacency uh this will be the only commercial use this cannot expand out of that 450 as part of this this uh condition the trash will be screened in the bag that's RMC code but to ensure that that that is happening on how that happens uh big one here is we're eliminating those hours of operation between 7 A.M and 7 PM our normal hours of operation they are allowed by right to 6 a.m to 11 p.m so they're really restricting that so that's really cutting down on a lot of that interference or any impacts we'd potentially see in the evening construction is going to be limited as they're moving through that there's going to be no Amplified music Outdoors so no no ability to have music or other Amplified no live entertainment Outdoors there'll be uh required to use dark sky lighting and then their signage is is limited on how they can sign looking at them the parking and the actually conversion of what's Happening Here uh part of the way that we can help to so they have submitted an altern uh alternative study uh that allows that per RMC they're allowed to do that allows them to reduce their overall parking they've come back with a study because of the proximity of the University size different things happening that that they're going they are proposing nope no parking B provided and this really become a walkable realm uh doing that we we've made some constraints uh or put some conditions on them to ensure that this is what this becomes that's limiting those those seats to 16 so it is just a little small neighborhood coffee shop we're increasing their required bicycle parking so we're really making sure that bike parking and that is is prioritized um removing that curve cut apron and installing that Parkway as I mentioned on the front uh that is kind of big as we see those backing movements and other things as as I mentioned there are some developments that are coming into that area and that will require a signalization at that evidence point and the cross across the street there and so that's really going to limit how traffic's going to move and back up loading zones parking along that Frontage so that because of that signalization there really wouldn't be allowed to have parking along the street curb in front of that area um they'll have to obtain a tree work permit and plant trees per City standards of course uh the back driveway will have to comply with our new codes and they'll have to update that if needed and then that fence is going to be reduced down to four feet in height just for a safety issue of of cars going in and out of that area so staff did make the uh did analyze this look through all the required findings was able to make all of them and with with that I will leave you with this motion and available for questions as required thank you thank you Brooke appreciate it we will start with uh disclosures from the Commissioners commissioner Johnson please commissioner Johnson very familiar with the site commissioner Villanueva familiar with the site commissioner Balto familiar with the site Armstrong I'm familiar with the site also familiar with the site commissioner draculic familiar with the site okay we'll Now open up for public comment Michelle do we have any requests to speak forms voicemails I did not receive any request to speak forms no voicemails and no correspondence was was received thank you anybody in the chambers wish to speak a public comment on this item seeing none will close public comment and move it to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant staff or discussion Mr chair if there's no questions I do have a just a comment please it's my final meeting I'm going to comment as I want to um actually I am I am incredibly happy to see this project coming through um when we were the Architects for the engineering building immediately across the street from this and the entire concept behind that building was to allow for pedestrian access from the east side of the site directly on the campus and it has been incredibly successful based on the point now that somebody actually wants to put a coffee shop there because of the level of pedestrian activity it is there so I think you know as a you know proud copy of my building I'm happy to see that it is having that effect so um based on that I am willing to make the motion for this project uh case number ldc23-00050 the Evans Avenue coffee shop based upon compliance with the applicable findings I moved to approve the conditional use permit with the request for the alternative equivalent compliance subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings uh chair yes I have some comments to make if that's okay please go ahead um so I disagree I think it's not compatible with the area I think it's it's multi-family and there's a lot of housing in that area and generally yes I am super supportive of you know walkability cycling lack of parking limited parking but in this case I just don't think it's compatible with that area that's all residential there's houses right there the schools across the street there's a lot of you know with commercial there's a ton of commercial within the university I think it's called the University District I just don't think this is a compatible space for it I mean I can't make the findings so I am going to be a no on this one [Music] okay we have a motion but let's keep the discussion going or questions feel free to commissioner Armstrong um I agree with commissioner Johnson uh I was an alumni of the University of Nevada um it was sad to see Bebo go before I graduated I think this is a nice addition to the area I'm happy to see something creative like this I think City's done a good job of mitigating some of the traffic and parking concerns just by putting in guardrails that make it difficult to park there and promote it as like a walkable recyclable cycle of all area so I am happy to support the project and I just have a question but any other comments from commissioner vilda just a quick one for you Brooke if you don't mind what did we have any feedback from Neighbors any Kickback I didn't see any comments uh before we got here in the staff report if you want to touch on that sure uh this uh project was managed by uh associate planner Leah Brock she did uh uh take on some uh comments that came in from neighboring as we put out those postcards and that uh answering questions and sort of addressing some of those questions outside of any sort of um negative feedback or anything like that nothing that that we don't we're not hearing from someone tonight or they haven't continued to write in okay great thank you with that said we have a motion from commissioner Johnson if we would like to second or any more discussion commissioner Armstrong will second if there's no discussion all right we have a motion in a second all in favor aye all opposed nay all right motion passes five to one good luck on your project thank you all right closing item 6.2 we'll move on to item 6.3 uh case number ldc23-00062 Viewpoint Apartments Access Road mspr looks like we're going to take a presentation from the applicant good evening for the record Dave snelgrove with CFA and I'm joined to this evening with the applicant and owner Mr Don Bernard he's with uh Montebello 2lp and we also have Christine Siegfried and Bob skiff as uh other representatives of the owner so the property in question tells three Parcels for a total of 90 97.97 Acres this is up by the Home Depot in Northwest Reno and south of the freeway um near there's kind of an odd odd North Boundary that's where the Harris Billboards are located it's inade Arizona property and we are to the west side of McCarran Boulevard we've requested a major site plan review for cuts and fills specifically the cuts will be are in excess of 20 feet fills a Nexus of 10 feet but we've only got about 4 800 square feet in total of the three three and a half acres or so that actually affects that that's bringing us to you today so it's a very small area this would be for an access road for an approved project back last year trying to remember which month we were in August of September of last year we went through a conditional use permit for 432 unit Apartment project which was basically a continuation of something that was approved about 28 years ago give or take the Montebello apartments were phase one I'll go through a map on that this access road is intended to provide day-to-day traffic ultimately in and out of the Viewpoint Apartments it would also provide for construction access route which is vitally important to get to the back side of this property because as you can see it's kind of on a peninsula out there coming in from from the East and it would also have we do have an emergency access point that comes out onto the little uh looped road that goes down to McCarran Boulevard as part of this so here's the zoning of the property the property is owned I'm at 14 allowing for the apartment uses on the site as mentioned before the Montebello apartments which are to the right hand side to the east those are constructed the Viewpoint apartments or have been approved but will still need to be constructed this is a copy of the original map that was approved this was under case number 7995 which is a very old case numbers under Oasis the Bluffs that had a total of 864 units approved all of that was feeding out through one access point and then that was approved that way at that time and the media and the access point was allowed during that time I've got a slide that'll go over that in Greater detail what you can see from the past work that was done the Montebello apartments are fully constructed and there's a couple roads that point out that would feed into the into the Viewpoint apartments that would have been considered part of the Oasis Bluffs Montebello site in the past but we've renamed that and that'll be a different product that's up there you can see on this map that there's been a lot of earthwork that's been done there's grading and and you can see a semblance of the roadway pattern well that's important because a lot of the utilities were already put in place I think pretty much all of them the conduits are there the sewer lines there the water lines are there they were all put in the ground in anticipation of moving forward and it halted at some point and that'll be important later in in my discussion that the utility lines and all those improvements are in fact there this is the access point that serves uh the Montebello apartments currently and this was the access point that was approved previously for um for the Oasis project back in the 95 case the Dual median separated access that wasn't allowed fire access at one point it gave you one way up and one way down and you weren't going to have weren't anticipating you were going to have blockage of both it gave it gave a separation it gave appropriate turnarounds for for fire vehicles I think even some of the longer term members of the Planning Commission don't recall when this was allowed but you you uh this outdates it outdates your tenure but this went away probably 15 plus or minus years ago maybe a little more um that's been one of the challenges on the side is is getting a a secondary access getting a fire access we do have one proposed with this and I'll go over that um as we go through the presentation but this shows a a the access points the green arrows were where the access was supposed to go originally and actually the way we kind of had it proposed uh when we came forward a Viewpoint the yellow lineup on top goes across part of the Harris property and goes over to the Home Depot property over to the uh over to the Eastern side and then would access out onto uh onto Sierra Ridge Drive and that is one that we were anticipating to be our construction access we were in discussions with Home Depot during this time and they said no we don't want to have uh construction access go through there so it sounded like things were going to be good on getting just the emergency access through there's already an emergency access for the Harris property and there's also it also an emergency access crossing the Home Depot property for the senior apartments that are the senior housing project that is just up adjacent to our site so we didn't think that was going to be a big deal until they went on radio silence on us so it kind of threw us into a big quandary first we couldn't have construction access through there and we were trying to figure out a way to get construction equipment in there easily especially some of the larger equipment and we ended up coming up with this roadway which is the blue blue arrows back and forth and basically it it runs just south of the existing Disturbed area you've got a pedestrian access there's a pedestrian Trail that'll show up better in one of my later slides that will be just downhill from that one that pedestrian Trail won't be connected to this road it'll actually be separated there's a landscape there's quite a number of trees which I'll I'll point out on one of the later slides well this slide right here staff has requested through condition that our trees because of our lineal footage of the road it requires 172 total trees and that's putting them in place at one tree every 30 lineal feet of the road and we've got that on each side so it's 170 true trees and rather than providing them in this very linear regulated fashion we agree with staff that it would make more sense to have these grouped as the trees up on the hill already are and so that is one of the conditions I believe is condition number five that identifies that we need to do grouping of the trees rather than staggering them rather than spacing them out very regularly on this access road as you come up toward the main access point off of Summit Ridge Drive we'd propose there's already a maintenance access road that comes out there and we'd propose an emergency access to be located there Trey Palmer we've had a couple discussions with him with fire department and he still wants to have an emergency access point to go out through Home Depot our challenge is we're not in control of the time frames at Home Depot we do believe that we can get that other access we just don't know what time frame it'll be in and that puts us in in quite a challenge relative to this access road so we will have an emergency access that comes out and I will point out that just construction of this road doesn't create any occupancy or any particular need for that secondary access we we would have a point out there it's not what fire department wants at the end of the project and we believe that we can get that so this slide just shows the grouping of the trees that exists on the hill right now and we'll need to provide something in similar fashion so they're not quite so regular as mentioned before there was development that came down off of the hill to provide The Pedestrian path and the planting that's there and we're going to extend that down and have to do appropriate planting and re-vegetation the bottom two pictures show the edge of the existing pedestrian path and it basically shows the grades of the land through part of the land where the access road would go go just downhill from from this pedestrian path that exists mentioned before that we're just under 4 800 total square feet of uh area that's tripping us into a major site plan review so I've circled those two areas uh the the cuts and they're very hard to see on the on the map but I have it pointed out on the right hand image the top left Arrow there's really a blue hazed area in there that's kind of hard to see but there is a little area that equates to about 56 plus square feet and then the purple areas which stand out much much better equate to a total of 4 750 or so square feet so it's those areas that are tripping us into a major site plan a review out of the whole 3.46 Acres that were disturbing though this is the cumulative in that 48 or that says 4.8 that 4 800 square feet of area that trips us into this equates to only uh 0.11 uh Acres which is 3.2 percent of our overall Development Area so it's a very small fraction I'd mentioned some things about uh emergency access and the staff had put a condition on this project but we also changed the timing through discussions over the past week change the timing relative of the Viewpoint Apartments this is what was approved and I think it stated as of two days ago prior to the issuance it used to say of the first certificate of occupancy we changed that to prior to the issuance of a building permit for vertical construction we have to provide an emergency access subject to the satisfaction of the administrator so we did change that timing we agreed to do that we felt that that was that was appropriate and reasonable to do but we were anticipating that we ultimately we weren't going to have a condition for emergency access on this uh this Access Road itself so condition eight we are requesting that that condition be removed from this from this application from from this project we do want to have this approved if you feel at the end of the day that we need to retain that in there we would prefer having the approval over getting rid of that however I do hope that you agree with us on getting rid of this and some reasons for that is one I mentioned before that the access road on its own doesn't create any uh any occupancy in association with it two it creates a timing issue for us those utilities that are in the ground before we get going on any of the standard uh construction work that'll need to be done to get the property ready to actually go to Vertical construction there's a lot of upgrade to the utilities that's going to have to be done which is a surface and subsurface work we've got to be able to get equipment out there and this road allows us to do that so timing is critical to be able to get out there onto the site we do believe that the timing of this condition conflicts with the timing of what was just amended through the modif minor modification that I just showed on the previous Slide the timing of that one says prior to issuance of building permit for vertical construction and this one says prior to the issuance of any grading permit this one trumps everything and would hold us up immensely um also the access road takes in construction traffic off of uh the existing Drive aisles that are in the Montebello area which is a positive to the existing neighborhood that's there we would be able to get some of the smaller equipment through there some of the larger equipment we really need this access road because Home Depot has been clear that they don't want construction traffic to go through their property so with that I believe we really a lot of this becomes down to timing issues I'll see if Bob skiff would like to make any comments regarding this he's sitting behind me he knows more on the construction and and some of the challenges this presents good Bob you have about three minutes no worries this won't take very long I'm Bob skiff I'm here to try to clarify what's really happening here what ordinarily happens in a when you're building an apartment site like this you start with a mass grading and then we're putting in our pads and we're putting in our streets and we're doing all of that this all happened 27 years ago what we have is all the underground is in and our only way to check it is to build this construction access road to bring in backhoes only there's going to be no grading there's not going to be anything we're just going to have our road and do this so we can submit it to the city so they can approve the underground that we're we're actually redoing some of it that where it will collapse okay there's just we ran we ran some uh cameras through there probably a year and a half ago and it shows some areas in the um excuse me the sewer where it had collapsed but everything else 100 of everything is there most of it come into it okay but we still have to make sure that it's in good standing and that it's it it's compactable so that's why we use backhoes and we need the construction road because we can't take that stuff through uh the Montebello apartments so I can answer any questions I know a lot about this so Angela you want to talk about it clarify too Bob mentioned construction the first use of this would be for construction purposes and then it would get formalized for the day-to-day use that would that would come at the end I want to make sure that that was clear in the presentation okay thank you gentlemen you're all done okay great thank you we will get a presentation from book good evening Planning Commission once again uh Brooke Oswald associate planner a case before you is LDC 2300062 the viewport Viewpoint Apartments access road and major site plan review looking at the project site wouldn't went over it's about 100 Acre Site but we're really looking at that total Hundred Acre Site what is being proposed tonight is about three and a half acres uh it is for that major site plan review for the access road and that's being triggered by those cuts and fills we have those uh Cuts deeper than 20 feet in the field is greater than 10 feet in height which which triggers them um to look at the overall General site to kind of have an idea you have I-80 to the north of the site the Home Depot site that was mentioned and McCarran uh it's right on that Loop area there where you loop back in off of McCarran uh directly below the site is the Tumwater water tum wall facility and then uh to the left of the site you can see the large portion of vacant land that is uh noted the Rob Drive area we have a project after this you've seen some other projects there so we're kind of in that that same proximity in area zoning of this is mf-14 I kind of went through those General we have The General commercial there's a fairly mix of residential commercial uh public facility with the Tom wah even though it is a general commercial we're seeing that large lot residential one uh to the other side of the site we do have a uh requesting right now to modify that zoning with uh it's the hyzer permit that's in right now we're anticipating that will come back as a an SPD or a specific plan district and we would see uh potentially light industrial residential possibly commercial in that area issues here is that overall site design and the compatibility with the existing residences so this is um what is currently proposed there's an interesting history that was mentioned this was originally approved back in 1995 they built out a 450 units of that were built out around that time in 97 and then that back end has set sat vacant for uh 20 plus years at this point they did come back in 2022 it was before this commission for a conditional use permit to allow for that multi-family housing on that project although those conditions were just previously shown there is that modification minor modification that happened there taking that from the uh occupancy so the homes are the residents are billed or the multi-families built it's taking that back that they can't they have to have that second access before they can go vertical on anything giving us an assurance that we're not getting homes or vertical Construction in the ground and not having proper fire access uh once again showing that roadway uh there is some impact to an existing um stormwater system they are proposing to fill some of that there's another area within the uh Circle The Basin directly to the right you can see on that upper uh that they will be uh the proposing to basically um from a one-to-one um modify that storm drainage over there um there's a existing pedestrian path that runs just above this that will be maintained so we do have pedestrian access that are currently runs up through that way and then limiting those construction hours back to make sure that those existing residents are are not Disturbed just so this makes sense to everyone that bottom little leg Ties on to the far left and and goes up to the project site there uh looking at that existing landscape looking up the hill as it is the hillside we do have a number of evergreen trees our current standard would require 172 trees along that uh 2000 plus uh linear feet of roadway uh the condition that we we has been put on that is to really cluster those and go to a heavier Evergreen to provide more screening from light and also uh fit into a lot of the existing landscape there Steph did review this staff can make all the findings and I will leave you um with the following motion thank you bro appreciate it all right we'll move to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Gower no disclosures Armstrong no disclosures uh commissioner belto I spoke with the applicant Representative no to the disclosures commissioner Villanueva no disclosures Christian Johnson no disclosures commissioner draculic familiar with the area in the site all right closing that we will open up public comment Michelle do we have any requests to speak forms voicemails be anybody on Zoom no request to speak forms no voicemails and no correspondence received for this item thank you anybody in the chamber's wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and move it to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant or staff I have a quick question for the um for staff please you mentioned this was this application or a sister application was brought before us in 2022 do you know approximately when 22. I might see if it's in the staff report I think it said August in August okay yeah I will have more questions but not right now okay take a moment please chairman I have a couple questions commissioner Gower go ahead um broken potentially Dave too I'm trying to understand what the issue is here with these conditions conditions I don't and I think I quite understand so can you just talk through that one more time certainly and so originally when the staff report was written it was what we wanted to ensure is that we didn't get vertical construction and not have that secondary access so that condition was written to basically say you can't build this road until you have a secondary access right you can't build your primary access until we know we have a secondary access what has come in a minor modification has come in and that's modifying that original uh cup related to the development itself that previously said you can go ahead and build you have to have secondary access before you can you can get a certificate of occupancy what we've done is taken that all the way back and said you can't go vertical until we have that secondary access what that does is give us a little bit more comfort that we're not going to get the roadway building construction happen and a number of the things this primary access is like it goes forward um and so that that changes things on on sort of the timing and as was mentioned by the applicant's representative uh this this primary access is important to them for to for that construction they haven't been able to do it on the other side they have some preliminary work they need to do up there with the old infrastructure and making sure that that it all meets current standards and a number of that and so that I hope that helps to kind of make sense of why things have transitioned in that way and and the Assurance we have now with that that previous mod amendment to that condition so Dave that's what you're that's what you're asking for is a change to the previous condition you don't have an issue with the conditions and the staff reports that's being presented to us he he does have a the the current one because the current one says they can't build the roadway until they have a secondary access and that limits them from doing that preliminary work so we modified the initial one to say you can't build anything vertical until you have your secondary but you can build your primary to do your construction work so what's the secondary access uh they are still working on that and I will let Dave speak to his his options on that we have we have a couple points and I don't know if you can bring the bring the uh presentation back up let me go to this light here and this was actually in the slide when I came forward actually it looks like it might have been June 13th that we came through but my date on the bottom um that what this shows this blue dashed line is the one that we're in process working with First American Title Company and trying to reach out we have to cross both the Harris property and the Home Depot property and get back out to Summit Ridge Drive I had shown this previously and and identified that one of our possible solutions would be to go to the south of the Montebello apartments and connect out to the loop and another possibility and you're going to hear case after this and the Rob Drive project one of the challenges with the Rob Drive project that linkage is it goes across at a Federal Highway lands it's actually part of the interstate highway I had spoken to Alex velto when he or else sorry about that I had spoken to Alex Wolfson when he was at ndot and he said we could go through all this and he'd seen it before where everything was looking good from RN they send it over to fhwa and fhwa out of hand just says no we're not going to do that and he said that could be a year and a half to two years into the process you're walking along thinking you're going to get it and all of a sudden it's pulled out from under you obviously if we're having a Time issue with with this and the condition that says this is not only we can't build the road we can't go out and do any grading to get construction access in there to do that utility work that Mr skiff talked more more substantially about so there is already a condition on the apartments themselves that says we can't go vertical with that until we have the second acts the access that the staff and fire department want is that blue dash line that's one that we're not wholly in control of because we've got Home Depot we've had conversations with Harris in the past and that seems like that that had been going well but Home Depot as I mentioned before seemed to be going along fine and then all of a sudden went radio silence on us so we're hopeful that we can get them back and talk to them about this but we do have I mentioned the we will have a second access that gets past the choke point the concern about from the fire department was that intersection at Summit Ridge Drive and the entry into this apartment they said if there was something that happened there you need to have a different point where you can come out that doesn't tie in directly with that intersection so that choke point was the big concern this distance away from that intersection is similar to what the other distance is on this map you can see where the blue dashed line comes out and where this purple line comes out they're about the same distance from that choke point intersection in talking to Trey Palmer yesterday he said because we can't meet and there's really just no way we can meet one half of the hypotenuse that's the distance separation that you're supposed to have one half of the hypotenuse of the property there's just no way to meet it out on this peninsula that he said he wants to have this axis that we're proposing on the purple line which is before you tonight as well as the Home Depot access that'll give us three points of access and give him good justification that even though we can't meet what the standard would be we've got plenty of access here well we'd actually be providing at that point three points of access okay so the concern that we have is condition eight on this tonight because there's already a requirement that the secondary access be provided before we go vertical on the apartments themselves and that's when occupancy does come into play with this we're talking about a construction road first and foremost which will turn in ultimately to the primary access in and out of viewpoint but initially we need to be able to get out there and grade so it really potentially slows us down a lot if Home Depot doesn't act quickly on that other secondary axis because again we have one already shown on here and then we'd have a third one would be or second secondary access sounds weird um would be on that blue dashed line so long and short is we already have that secondary access as required and that's what the apartments we'd request respectfully that you take it condition 8 off of this item and leave it where it's appropriately placed with the apartments and Mr chair if I may expand Angela Foose assistant director for development services and we've had a lot of conversations so maybe just to expand on this as well that blue dashed line is the required fire emergency access and so that goes through Home Depot if they are not able to get that agreement none of this project can go forward so that this whole project the the apartments that were already approved a year ago this access road that they're talking about in pink none of this can happen until they have that fire connection and fire agreement through Home Depot so From staff's perspective again we support the project we recommended approval the concern is if if Home Depot doesn't agree to give them an access easement for fire and they come in and they they cut up the Mountainside it's all for nothing so now we've just degraded a Mountainside a hillside for for no reason so From staff's perspective yes we support you doing that however we want to make sure that you're going to get that fire recorded secondary fire access agreement from Home Depot before you start damaging this Hillside and and if you cannot get it again none of this can happen but if you can then great then you can move forward so that's why we added this specific condition related to that pink row that they're proposing tonight thank you that I appreciate all that clarification I think I'm I think I'm good I think I've got all of the the clarification that I need for my question if other Commissioners have questions I'll let them answer it but I'm I'm sure you don't want me to answer because my question that's it I'm good on my question all right thank you chair man question first uh staff or the applicant Whoever has the answer um can you run us through what happened at the last meeting because I I'm trying to remember because this project seems very familiar and I remember having concerns about this and I'm pretty sure I voted no but I don't know because I can't find the minutes um but I think this was actually the exact concern that I had was that this was going to be an issue and that's why I was a no yeah so the project was approved uh subject to that condition that they have that secondary access so I think the big thing here is when this whole thing came through of 800 units you know 20 plus years ago fire access was different and they had different standards those standards have changed in 20 years and we require that secondary access with that and so it changes the project and so they do need to have that secondary access per fire department before they can move forward and that's why we had the condition and the condition is on there that that secondary access has to be done prior prior to uh now at vertical construction I would if there is more on the fire we do have a representative from the fire department here if it's specific about fire questions and they can add a higher level of detail than I do can you tell me how I voted I can't find it no I I can't I I can't remember and I don't have the specifically on that I can try to go back and find the minutes or I think Angela is trying to look for this I tried to I couldn't sorry sir sir please hold thank you commissioners for the questions why Angela does a little digging we do have fire here did anybody is that correct does anybody have questions for them I guess Christian I have a follow-up probably for Angela just from the explanation that she had um so I think one of the this is interesting because when it came through before the primary access was indicated to be coming through the existing complex correct and so I I guess and I don't want to speak in hypotheticals here but what you brought up is making me go that way in the sense that if that initial one came through and maybe this was where my question was before your comment was why not amend this roadway into the original request for since it's going to be the primary access because when I first started looking at this I'm like okay it's the primary access it's coming in at a different point what kind of changes to the layout are going to be concerned so I guess that's my question is why wasn't staff you know why wouldn't we have opened up the original approval again to reincorporate this because now this is being deemed as the primary access which is a different situation than the way it was presented before so I guess that's the the kind of the question I'm going with which then would lead into a follow-up so they can build the apartments today without this road only if they can show that blue dashed line that goes through Home Depot their project doesn't doesn't need this pink road that we're talking about today however because they don't want to have all the construction traffic going through an existing apartment complex this definitely helps so it's not required for their project to move forward it's more of the they're electing to do it to help get the construction trucks in there and they can use it as another point of access for for their apartment owners or tenants to get in and out but regardless of if this road goes in yes or no it still does not meet our fire code requirements and I think that's the difference is that they have to have that Dome Home Depot access in order to meet our fire code requirements and that I understand that from based on where you're going I guess that's where I'm I'm kind of working my way backwards to the question about the the condition that's on there um and and questioning I guess if this would have come through originally with this roadway as the primary access the comment is there still would have been a secondary access however under that scenario all of this work could have been done up to the point of certificate of occupancy for that secondary access correct and again we would not have issued a certificate of occupancy so no one can move into that apartment until they prove that they have that Home Depot fire access okay so that was I just my trying to understand what how this didn't reopen the one before it was confusing to me so now I understand why yeah sorry sorry why we didn't go to that point so and it could have so I mean keep in mind too so they have an approved project they could could go forward with that today so on one hand we don't want to take away that opportunity of something we've already given them they have an approved project they can go today but again they they can't do anything until they have that recorded access from Home Depot okay thank you appreciate that foreign looks like we want to move into discussion yeah I'll I will commissioner draculich uh ultimately I remember this uh item back then I remember that emergency access road being vital to all of us if not a heavy part of the conversation uh so I understand that I understand the shift they're making um and I I do support having that condition still in there it still seems to make a lot of sense to me um I don't know what other good resolution we could help with but that's kind of where I'm standing right now yeah Mr chairman I'm I'm with you I mean I understand the applicant's concerned with um with the timing scenario but I mean it's Angela articulated if if you can't get that roadway the secondary access you build the what you're calling now the primary access it's going to to lead to Nowhere potentially for another 25 years until you can get the the secondary access I mean I think we need we need that level of assurance before you move forward with the grading and that's what condition eight is is in there to do as I understand it so that I mean that makes complete sense to me from a um a city standpoint again and the applicant's standpoint I understand why you're probably not in favor of that well if we're done with discussion open to entertaining emotion Mr chairman I'm ready to make a motion please go ahead okay um in case number ldc23-00062 Viewpoint Apartments Access Road major site plan review based upon compliance with the applicable findings I moved to approve the major site plan review subject conditions listed in the staff report and they can make all the findings we have a motion commissioner belts well a second you have a motion and a second all in favor aye aye any opposed an opposed motion passes good luck gentlemen thank you for your Indulgence thank you all right closing item 6.3 moving on to item 6.4 case number ldc23-00059 Rob Drive Extension mspr looks like we're going to take a presentation from the applicant's representative Andy drone good evening thank you for uh thank you Mr chairman Commissioners for the record Andy Durling with wood Rogers uh representing the Rob Drive mixed juice uh major site plan review um Josh sof with FJ management the property owner is also with me tonight to help answer any questions um this is Major site plan review for both Hillside development as well as cuts and fills that exceed the uh 20 and 10 foot thresholds the Project's located just to the west of what you just saw uh at the existing Terminus of Rob drive at the interchange with interstate 80. look at a little closer you see that interchange the existing you know Terminus of Rob drive there this parcel has had um some grading disturbances it's been part of an approved grading permit and previous special use permits for cuts and fills to to use this site as a borrow facility both for um kind of Public Works projects it's been used for as well as for the project to the west of this which was the TCA project that was in front of you back in January of this year which were three projects were approved as part of the TCA property um this property is master plan Suburban mixed juice and has an existing zoning of General commercial um the again the major site plan review for the hillside development the exhibit shown on the screen is that slope analysis map essentially you know looking at sort of the Southwest quadrant and the southeast quadrant of the site those are those natural 30 slopes the the red areas that you kind of see in between are kind of remnants of that existing grading operation that's been ongoing for for many years now so it has been previously Disturbed and really what we're looking at is to grade out some future pads and extend Rob Drive in order to facilitate future development uh in doing so we're looking to preserve those areas in in the southwest and the southeast those sorry the extension as shown here you got a little bit of a preview of this with the TCA properties uh albeit at that time it was a fairly generic connection that we were showing it was kind of to be determined um to a certain degree as far as the actual roadway alignments go um so this is giving a little bit more clarity to that future roadway so Rob Drive essentially extends South um in a kind of curvy linear fashion to a roundabout and then you'd have essentially two collector roads taking off from there one heading to the West along the south side of that West pad to serve the TCA property and then another one uh heading to the east to serve the S3 Rob drive as uh I think Brooke mentioned uh previously we currently have an SPD in uh in review under review with the with the staff on that and hopefully the coming months will be in front of you with that project as well um at this time really we're just doing the grading it's the major site plan review to establish the grading of these pads it does require quite a bit of mass grading in order to um you know cut some of those areas mostly it's a lot of cut so the uses are unknown at this time we did Supply a a trip generation a kind of a an Abridged traffic letter to give you an idea of just the planning that's going into this to in anticipation of the future uses on this entire South Side uh in order to size the the Rob Drive Extension the roadway make sure it's sized appropriately so for this area what we've anticipated at this time again subject to change but would be a shopping center possibly a hotel and a gas station as well as some multi-family so very typical uses that you would see see right next to a freeway interchange we don't think we're kind of going outside of the box on some of that and and feels like it's you know um is an anticipated type you know mix of uses at least hypothetically at this point so depending on those uses though there could be future entitlements so multi-family in particular if we go over 100 units we would be back in front of you with a conditional use permit so there may be future entitlements on this site again just ultimately dependent on those final uses that would come through this is looking at the grading plan and showing those um kind of you know uh bits and pieces of those areas that have the cuts and fills the uh Pink areas are cut over 20 feet the blue areas are fills over 10 feet um so it just kind of depends some of it's relevant to the Past grading operations some of it's based on the existing you know or the natural I will call it Contours we do have one retaining wall that is located on uh it's really hard without a mouse to point at things but along that Southeast quadrant where just east of the roundabout as the road is curving uh back to the north we do have a retaining wall there it's shown it ranges from essentially nothing up to eight feet maximum and so what we have talked about with staff the staff report we're in agreement with the staff report and and the conditions by and large condition number six in particular though the last sentence mentions that retaining walls have to be a maximum of six feet in height in this location already had it shown at eight feet and if we were to go to tiered walls with a maximum of six feet it would actually create more disturbance in this area because that's that's in that cut area and if you look just to the south of that it's it's relatively steep existing slopes that are to to the south of us so we respectfully request uh the Planning Commission consider striking the last sentence of condition six we've talked to staff and I believe they're comfortable with it and can can attest to that as we mentioned and presented to you during the TCA property entitlements and approvals there are essentially four Property Owners on the south side of Interstate 80. the TCA property this Rob Drive mixed juice which is controlled by FJ management the S3 development which is controlled um by Blake Smith who's also here tonight and then the Simon's property so we have been working together with the majority of those property owners in particular TCA FJ and S3 have all been working together on you know cost sharing agreements and and really trying to plan this out in a comprehensive Manner and so this is kind of what was um this is what's anticipated as kind of part of those developments and that went into the determination of the overall traffic generation so we have um prepared an overall traffic report like I said an Abridged version was submitted with this but a full version has been submitted to end that looks at you know all of the traffic generated here to determine what The Interchange improvements are they haven't changed since we were here in January essentially we will be extending the four lanes of Rob drive to the South um there will be some modifications it's a little hard to see but um in the in the bottom left corner picture there it's showing the line work for the future interchange a new signalized intersection on the south terminal there a new signalized intersection on the north side of Interstate 80. some additional turn Lanes things like that that's the ultimate build out it could be phased when we were here with TCA they had kind of a very small portion of that and and it could be phased if they were to come first ultimately though this is a build out and then the table on the right side there identifies all the peak hour trips that would be generated by what's known at this time or what's anticipated I should say at this time to serve all four properties and so um essentially 33 3300 sorry uh just over 3 300 total peak hour trips uh in the PM that's the that's the kind of controlling Factor um the existing trips at Rob drive so all the uh you know all the development in the queen area that's coming down is a little over a thousand trips um TCA is taking up 240 trips um the S3 Rob Drive is 635 trips the Rob Drive mixed use so the case in front of you tonight is just over 800 trips and ultimately leaving uh about 570 trips of additional capacity that would be available to say Simon's in this particular case for that overall interchange and the intersections there um and like I said those improvements can be phased albeit um because the property owners are working together and working on cost sharing um we're anticipating you know more than likely the roadway will be built in kind of one phase but the signals and things like that could be phased over time because indot ultimately wants to see both signals going at the same time and they want to see the signals go in when the warrants are there for them so you wouldn't see them kind of come out of the gate it would be as development actually starts to occur vertical development starts to occur that those signals would probably be installed so we are working with ndot like I said a full-blown traffic study has been submitted to them we've been working with them for the past I don't know call it six to nine months about three four weeks ago we submitted an ice analysis which is that intersection control evaluation so it looks at the intersections themselves determines what the most appropriate mitigation is so that's been submitted it's kind of a higher level modeling effort that goes into the intersections that's been submitted to ndot as well so we're waiting for their feedback and ultimate approval but But ultimately to remind you the control of access so our ability to get access to ndot's facility was purchased it exists it's there ultimately ran it now at this point we're trying to determine what what it needs to look like um so the signals the lanes the turn Lanes all of that so that's been submitted we're working through that process with them ultimately has to be approved by ndot and then Federal highways Administration as well and with that that concludes our presentation so we are in agreement with the staff report uh with the caveat that we would like to see condition six modified to strike the final sentence and be happy to answer any questions thank you and now presentation from Brooke from the city good evening again Brooke Oswald associate planner quickly go over the site it's about 50 Acre Site directly off Rob Drive the surrounding properties are vacant we have a process to the left or to the west of the site the TCA properties that's Town Homes multi-family we saw some single family as we went down further down the hill to be more appropriate to those homes what this is is a major site plan review we're looking at those cuts deeper than 20 feet in depth and feels great and filled we also uh have because it is over that 10 um 10 acres it does trigger our Hillside development and so the big thing we're looking at at this is that because it is General commercial we're not regulating the density but what we are regulating is that open space and making sure we're having those open space requirements um I also mentioned the Heiser project we are currently looking at this um we have been in and as we spoke before we're looking at this this uh North Rob Drive uh area as a whole that's uh making sure we have proper fire access making sure we we continue to look at those traffic that's probably one of the bigger thing is that traffic onto I-80 and Rob drive and how that happens so we're we're monitoring this and have been working together with the app to ensure that that all the pieces are going to fit on this it is uh General commercial um the Apple it's representative proposed a few uses but that does uh does provide a multitude of uses that could be from multi-family to traditional uh commercial uses we'd anticipate it uh being it's directly off and off ramp and we would see probably similar development that we're seeing across to the north of hotels gas stations uh retail small commercial uh master plan uh we're looking at that currency management system so bringing that on we do have the infrastructure roadways connectivity is there those neighborhood connections as this builds out we're going to have those connections running through those those uh develops we have to both the east and west of this and then also as we we see those improvements we'll see pedestrian and other connectivity to the north over to the other projects to the north uh working through our grading policies and making sure we're we're doing those and then those larger network connections that we're looking at especially that uh the interplay with with I-80 uh this is looking at that Rob Drive South development looking once again looking at that as a whole our project site being the blue and outline there you can see really it is that main backbone infrastructure that's going to provide connectivity to really the the entire upper site um uh the arrow to the right that's the project we just spoke about that that access does is challenging any sort of secondary access of that because of of there is a large drainage there very steep slopes and that we have then that the ndot and the federal highways um issues that we'd have the connectivity there we do anticipate that we would see a secondary and we will require a secondary to the right there off the orange parcel um there are different proposals on how that would come through on the three Parcels to the West um where the area is there is where that emergency it is limited to an emergency access only so we do have an emergency access plan for that area to come down off of there quickly look the project itself it really is grading to establish two pads we don't have a development project at this point but there is that West pad not ace pad um there there are conditions within the staff report that require that working intimately with ndot RTC and all of that making sure that happens we have a master uh study that's coming in there's a study that requires when we see development that will have to be updated and lead in to make sure we're hitting those trigger points to see those off-site improvements that are going to be required as far as the open space is in the green there it was analyzed by staff and and they do meet per their development they do meet the open space requirement that that is required uh as Andy said the site is is is very has been very disturbed we've seen activity on the site for for quite some time uh those steeper slopes uh that were shown uh previously on the slope map you can see that those are not where development is they've avoided those area those become our open space and preserved in open space areas and uh some of those other fields and largely cut out of this area are coming from some of the Disturbed areas uh staff did review this as we are continuing to review this area it could make all the findings I believe a phone call or a a public comment was received today that was forwarded to the Planning Commission I also did speak with them personally today and spoke their main concerns were light uh noise as was kind of shown this is a very isolated parcel we have a great amount of distance and topography between those surrounding residents as we see that development as we move down there we actually de-intensify the uses going down to single family uses in that um but with that RMC has a number of requirements that we'll be looking at screening buffering making sure like glare in that is and also mitigating any sound so I did speak with them and uh said that we will look at that as development comes in with that I'll leave you with the motion and available for questions as necessary thank you thank you oh actually so as a per uh Andy's request to strike that step did look at that and uh is in agreement that we would could reduce some of the grading and some of the deeper impacts Michelle if you can turn on the overhead really quick just to give everyone an idea of what is being asked this is condition six it's specifically dealing with our grading uh the first part of it really is is saying any retaining walls rip wrap need to come in and match that natural topography so we don't have some large uh Cuts or scars a very notable area the bottom part was uh we do have some reference in our code that we prefer to see some rock walls and that was originally being driven from there in looking and And discussing what the applicant um we do see uh the potential that a eight foot solid wall there will minimize grading and overall impacts on that and will not have a dramatic visual um impacts so staff is in agreement with the model modification of that thank you Brooke appreciate it all right we'll go to the Commissioners for disclosures we'll start with commissioner Gower thank you Mr chair I spoke with the applicants representative and I'm familiar with the site uh commissioner Armstrong spoke with the applicants representative and familiar with the site commissioner valto same disclosures commissioner Villanueva no disclosures Johnson spoke with the applicants representative received email voicemail today and familiar with the site commissioner draculaich familiar with the site and spoke with the app against representative all right done with disclosures we open up to public comment Michelle any request to speak forms voicemails or Zoom no request to speak forms received no correspondence received we did receive the voicemail and we will play that now thank you hi my name is Catherine Burns and I'm calling regarding ldc23-00059 Ross Drive extension mspr and my comments is that I live on what 7440 West 4th Street and I'm hoping that this project will be considerate of light pollution and sound pollution it's quiet here and I just hope that they'll follow like Juniper Ridge did with having restriction on lights and at night especially um that's what I wanted to say thanks for your consideration anything else Michelle on your end okay that's it on my end thank you anybody in the chambers wish to speak in public comment on this item seeing none we'll close public comment and go to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant or staff or discussion commissioner Gower thank you Mr chair um for a question for you on that change to condition number six so just for clarification the six feet isn't a requirement in code no it's not it's it's we're looking at kind of preferred uh preferred practice and we were we're pushing that preferred practice but looking at the amplification and the site-specific uh constraints uh staff stat filter that actually potentially could cause more grading and more impact uh than than the eight foot wall so it's a two foot higher wall but that they would have to step out two walls and impact further grading down and as you start to chase a hill you just keep going down right so okay and there's no sense in changing the maximum height in the condition to something other than 60. um I mean obviously that that is an option I think one thing is is the the rock wall where it's not highly visible you know it's kind of high it's kind of hidden back under the back end of that rope that that maybe a more traditional engineered wall maybe for safety factors uh ease of construction some of those other things may be more appropriate in that area also okay thank you commissioner Villanueva thank you Brooke um can you tell me I'm trying to understand um still learning the so this is a major site plan review for Hillside development um and then the grading resulting in Cuts deeper so I understand we're reviewing that at this point and then the last time what was it that we reviewed the last time this was in front of us so before let me let me see if I can join back really quick so the the we have uh several different Property Owners up here and so this this is uh the property owner night is different than the property owners that we reviewed before but they all are trying to work together so what we reviewed before is the pink the yellow and the green to the left of this that is uh the single family homes that are down towards more of the the single family home area we're seeing a town home portion in that yellow and then as we move up we're seeing the green is a multi-family development so it was all residential development we were looking at that point okay so this particular project has not been in front of us this has not this is a new one and so those three projects can be um before you before now the roadway network was a little different because they were only proposing their development and they had an agreement with the property owner okay we need to get our roadway out to Rob drive because we need that access what's happened now is this property for property owners coming forward saying okay now we're looking to do our development this is the roadway Network uh that works best for us but we're still providing that connectivity and still making that basically those other three Parcels uh connectivity in addition we're providing that connect they're providing that connectivity uh to the west of their site where we'd anticipate future development okay so those previous projects were approved based on the assumption that this one would be approved no they would have actually had they had a different roadway alignment a slightly different Road layer alignment they didn't have the because of the traffic volumes that they were generating they they didn't necessitate the the four lanes and the roundabout right but as we're seeing more development now this group has said okay they they had their their access right but they weren't going to build out a full roadway now this the the this group's come forward say we would like to do two pads we're knowing the intensity of that traffic is going to increase and we're going to have to increase the roadway so that's why we're seeing the additional Lanes the turnabouts and some of the different accesses there okay and you said this is a previous nicely Disturbed site yes we've seen uh grading and other activities on the site for the last couple decades okay and then um can you touch on because I know with limits on grading and development we have additional factors we have to consider in your opinion how does the project mitigate environmental degradation including slope failure erosion sedimentation and storm water runoff what would sure um you know as I I was showing through that slope boundance of that they avoided those big steeper natural areas now those that's naturalized visitation and anytime we can avoid that leave it in a natural state that's probably one of the best options you have for storm water environmental habitat everything else so they've tried to preserve those as mentioned it's highly Disturbed but we are seeing some steeper slopes and then below that we have a an area that is naturalized also we wouldn't anticipate ever seeing development on that so we have kind of a natural naturalized area that's coming through that as far as all the storm drain and all of that they will be required through their development to meet all our storm uh storm drainage requirements that would be could be detention other detention and that will really depend on how that development comes in and how they address that but we have very strict standards on on how we approach all that so there's no in your opinion risk if slope failure or anything like that given these cuts and not a lot of you know that they are they are doing uh some cuts and stuff like that as it moves out uh maintaining the natural vegetation the other or other requirements that we have through our Public Works design manual for slope stabilization we have a Swip that goes in and they have to protect the site from all of that prior to any construction so there's a number of uh steps in place that protect us in that event that that I could make the finding and staff could make the findings our engineering and Public Works can make the findings on that I asked that mainly because the walls I was wondering if that was tied to why the walls need to be higher is that is there any relation there no I think it's just how they brought that roadway out to get that pad in there that that wall um they're going to have to cut that back in to beat the match to match the back slope they're limited on their property and as I was kind of saying the as you kind of Chase that you're chasing a Hillside and it gets very hard to tie back in so they've come back in with a wall which is really appropriate mechanism to really limit overall grading impacts seeing no other questions we want to move into discussion or entertain emotion commissioner Gower commissioner Johnson could be your last motion Mr chair pressure's on I'm prepared to make a motion just because the pressure's on you you called me out I totally did that was that was appropriate okay hang on scrolling backwards case number ldc23-00059 Broad Drive Extension based upon compliance with the applicable findings that move to approve the major site plan reviews subject to conditions with the modification of uh the elimination of the SEC this last sentence in condition number six as requested by the applicant and acceptable to the city and I guess just one comment before I go I do like on this project as I appreciate the fact that you know it's a pretty intensive area but it's it's an isolated plateau and I think having all of or as many of the property owners working together as possible is you know makes for a smoother process from our standpoint to be able to look at okay one was approved with the acknowledge that another was coming now we're seeing that one the next one now has a legitimate tie into that and it makes sense so I appreciate the effort that the applicant and and applicants representative have gone onto in order to tie all of this together in a way that makes sense for the full development of that sort of unique geographical location so there's my comment and my motion thank you Mr chair thank you for the motion only one man May second which is joke yes we are all second I'll just add to that that I do also appreciate condition number 10 which requires the additional traffic studies throughout the phasing because the traffic piece being clarified is those parts of the project become clearer going forward was an important part for me so with that like in second I can make findings all right we got a motion and a second all in favor aye any opposed motion passes unanimationally good luck to you and all the owners all right closing items uh item six moving into item number seven Truckee Meadows Regional planning liaison report sure so um we have our next meeting on the 27th uh that meeting will obviously they release the agenda today there's a couple different items uh that meeting has the 27th oh sure guys if you guys don't mind moving to the uh Lobby that'd be great just for some man being annoyed sorry guys sorry I like yeah yeah I understand I also don't recall when the if we had a meeting since our last meeting I think it's been a while but our last meeting we had a workshop on different ways to address uh water in the region and we went through a workshop on different like water conservation efforts and did some bullet points and talked through it was the last meeting we had [Music] yeah okay great closing item number seven moving on to item number eight staff announcements Mrs Foose Angela Foose assistant director for develop ment Services just date from our most recent city council hearing which was yesterday um Council has actually been on a break so they have not had a meeting in over a month but the Carville Department's SPD was approved by Council yesterday so that was exciting another thing just to mention that development services is working on is related to outdoor dining and seating we are trying to encourage a lot of these downtown and Midtown businesses to do outdoor dining and so Council has passed a resolution to waive fees associated with permitting outdoor seating for the next year again the more we can do to be proactive and get these businesses to do things outside and encourage walkability is something our council is very much in support of so we're going to be pushing that and hopefully getting more outdoor seating in our Midtown area where we have these beautiful wide sidewalks now so look forward to doing more of that kind of positive programming in our downtown area that's it great thank you closing item number eight moving on to item number nine commissioner suggestions for future agenda items if I may just curious um will this be the last meeting for commissioner gown commissioner Johnson um I say that only because only for just one of the you know the right time to Express gratitude on your send-off so if this is it now would be the time if we think that because I'm not going to do it again if you're back here in two weeks this will be the last meeting where they sit at the diocese we will have them come back when in August when you guys are both available and we'll give you a nice little certificate and send off okay well I will start because I've always wanted to do it just wanted to say thank you for your service how many years now for both of you well well done thank you very much you guys were excellent at when I started as a new commissioner I hung on your very words and because they're very skilled and we'll try to carry your energy on but just want to give you a big thank you for all your professionalism uh insightful questions and everything else you do and your smiles yeah I'll go uh next year I really appreciate both of what you do on the commission uh commissioner Johnson you were my first chairman so you'll always be my chairman just so you know but I appreciate what you do I think there's a lot of times where you have I've told this to both of you and this is something that we're gonna be missing a lot from the commission there's a lot of times where you all hear things in public comment where you hear concerns and you intentionally ask questions to try to address those concerns and to make sure the public feels heard and that is something that all of us need to work on doing because it is so valuable for the public and for this process and you know at first when I got on I started thinking why are they asking these questions they know the answers and I eventually realized oh it's because you're doing your job to try to make sure the public feels heard and to really filter these projects and both of you do that better than anyone else I've seen on this commission no disrespect to y'all you're great but you two particularly doing extremely well but we're losing out on some excellent knowledge and appreciate your Insight over the years so thank you both so much can I just say something to both of you thank you for coming back to help with tonight's meeting I really appreciate that and thank you for being here all these years you made my job easy so that was definitely not a future agenda item but we will close item number oh anybody else oh Harry I'm Sorry Miss commission Armstrong sorry thank you chair um as the newest member of this commission I really do want to express my thanks to both of you um I am sad that you'll be leaving um without you know I haven't been here for even a year and I've learned so much in a short amount of time it's it's been incredibly instructive um I feel a lot more comfortable between my first meeting and and this meeting and you've given me a a lot of things to just consider how to how to be a good member of this commission so thank you so much for being generous with your time uh on the dice and outside of the diet so I appreciate my uh my short relationship with you and I wish you well awesome okay closing item number nine moving to item number 10 public comment Michelle any general oh wait no you have to do a public comment card yep definitely I'm told I talk fast and you only get one minute uh since you know uh uh I was here and I wanted to stick around I've known uh commissioner Gower and commissioner Johnson for a number of years even before their 10 years on the Planning Commission so for both of you guys want to express you know my appreciation from the you know from the professional industry of of planners in in Northern Nevada you both are stalwarts um you've been at this for a long time and um just want to express our appreciation uh in particular you know it's always impressive you guys are always prepared you always do your homework um you always have very thoughtful debates and consideration of every item uh that means a lot to me as a consultant um I also also think it's really impressive that you know you both were here for the adoption of a new master plan and a new zoning code those are you know yeoman's tasks and for the Planning Commission that's such a a huge effort uh in conjunction with staff so just thank you both for your professionalism and your years of service and I'm sure we won't see uh we'll definitely see you again but appreciate you guys thank you thank you sir seeing no others in the uh Chambers wishing to speak on public comment General and we will close item number 10 and move to item number 11 adjournment move to adjourn all right I don't think all right have a good night everyone