[snorts] All right. This is the City of Reno Planning Commission meeting. This is Wednesday, January 21st 1st, 2026. The time is 6:00 p.m. We will start with the pledge of allegiance. Uh, Commissioner Gonfentini to the flag to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. >> Liberty and justice for all. >> Item A2, roll call. Madame clerk. >> David Jockman >> here. >> Jacob Williams >> here. >> Manny Basera >> present. >> Christina Delviar >> here. >> Tina Gonantini >> here. >> Carrie Roier >> here. >> Alex Velto is absent. We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk, and we'll go right back to you. A3 public comment. >> 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're 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. Um, we did receive correspondence for this item that were general in nature and not specific to any items on this agenda. They were forwarded to the planning commission and have been entered into the record. Uh, anyone online? We do not have anyone online with their hand raised for this first general public comment period. >> Thank you, Madame Clerk. And so, we do have a few items uh to hear from for staff before we approve tonight's agenda. So, I will pivot to item B, staff announcements. Mr. Really? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as it relates to the agenda this evening, item C1, the applicant has requested this item be postponed. Since the item was publicly noticed, we do need to open the public comment, but we will not be taking action. We will not hear that item tonight. And then item D1, we will not be recommending an appointment to the regional planning commission uh this evening as well. There is an error on the agenda. Um, commissioners Williams and Gatini were inadvertently um not [clears throat] included on the list of potential candidates. So, we will add that to our next meeting agenda. >> Thank you, Mr. Uh, we will now go back to where we were on the agenda. That is item A4, approval of the agenda. That's 21st of January, 2026. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda? >> Commissioner Gianini. Motion to approve. >> Commissioner Williams second. >> Motion and second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Uh, next item, A5, approval of the minutes. This is from our January 7th, 2026 meeting. Can I get a motion to approve those minutes? >> Commissioner Gin. Motion to approve. >> Commissioner Williams. Second. >> Uh, okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. >> Okay. We will move to item C1. So, as staff just advised us, we must still take take public comment on this item. For this, uh, I will start with a disclosure and then, uh, we will go into public comment. Item C1, case number LDC26-27. This is South Valley's Park expansion phase 2. We will start with disclosures. I will begin uh in in uh an effort to to be consistent with the agenda item that we had on this on October 15th. Uh the applicant in this matter is a client of my employer. On this matter, I sought guidance from the city attorney's office and have been advised that I have a personal commitment in a private capacity to the interest of my employer. I've also been advised that the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in my situation would be materially affected by my commitment in a private capacity to the interest of my employer. As such, I will not be participating or voting on this item today. Mr. Vice Chair, could you please take over in my absence? >> All right, Madam Clerk, you open up public comment. Yes, we did receive correspondence for this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the record. That said, I do not have any request to speak forms in person and I don't have anyone requesting to provide public comment online. >> Okay. Well, as that's open and closed, then we can move on and we'll move to uh >> Excuse me for one minute. Yep. >> Commissioner, is this going to be continued to a day certain or are we going to renotice it? >> We will renotice this. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh that would be in closing C1 and we'll move on to C2. >> Thank you uh Mr. Vice Chair. Item C2. This is a staff report for possible action LDC26-28 military road secure storage. For this item, we will begin with a presentation from staff, Miss Mcaden. >> Good evening, commissioners. Grace McAdan, senior management analyst. Um, I'm going to be presenting on the Military Road secure storage project. So, the site is located just west of Lemon, south of Military Road. It's just over 6 acres in size on general commercial. Applicant is requesting a CUP for many warehouse operations in the general commercial zone. um operations between 11 pm and 6 am and non-residential development within 300 feet of residential. So some key issues we looked at when analyzing and reviewing this request were compatibility with surrounding uses and project design. So we'll get into two of those key or both of those key issues with this presentation. So when we look at compatibility, we see the site is surrounded by residential and neighborhood supporting uses and that's really the intent of this GC zoning. Um, a mini warehouse facility is generally a neighborhood supporting use where people store excess personal items, boat, RVs, boats, etc. Um, so having this close to people's homes can be beneficial. Uh, it's seen as kind of that another one of those neighborhood supporting uses. The 24-hour controlled access we looked at um when we talked to the applicant, that's just for tenants um with restrictions uh to only you know occur in these units. So the office hours will be just normal office hours. I think it's um 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. And then these tenants can have their controlled access throughout the day. 7-Eleven next door operates 24 hours a day. Just based on really the low intensity, we didn't see that as an issue with our review. Um condition five requires a 10-ft wide landscape buffer next to the multif family to help screen some of those potential impacts that we might experience with these two uses being next to each other. Um so that really made staff feel comfortable with the compatibility. Next, we looked at site design. Um, just kind of based on the way it was designed, you can see that it was created with neighbors in mind. Uh, the main building is at the southeast corner of the lot, which is the furthest away from that multifamily to the north of the site. Um, you do have RV parking throughout the site, but it's within enclosed buildings, which helps screen, you know, headlights or any potential impacts you might experience. And then the photometric plan that the applicant provided shows zero foot candles of spillover lighting. So what that means is really just containing the lighting within the site. No spillover lighting at the property lines to mitigate some of those impacts. So here's the findings for conditional use permit. Staff was able to make all the applicable findings and here's the recommendation. I'm available for questions. The applicant is here as well for any questions you guys might have and a presentation if needed. >> Thank you Miss Mcadin. So, uh, hearing that, uh, the applicant is available for questions, but will not proceed with a presentation. Is that correct, Miss Mcadin? >> I believe they have a presentation if they wanted to give one. >> Exactly the same. >> It's pretty repetitive. So, >> the choice is yours. Um, just for questions. >> Okay. Uh, then we will proceed with disclosures. I Commissioner Gonini. Commissioner Gfiantini read and reviewed the materials familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Jockman uh same disclosures. >> Commissioner Williams just read and viewed material. >> Uh we will now proceed online. >> Commissioner Delvr read and received materials and familiar with the site. >> Commissioner Roar read and received emails and materials. >> Commissioner Bera read and review provided materials and I'm very familiar with the site. That is it for disclosures. We will now move to public comment on this item. Madame clerk, >> I do not have any public comment registered for this item. >> Do we have any request to speak in chambers on this item? Seeing none, any request to speak online? >> Nope. >> Okay. We will now move to questions from the commission. >> Well, I'm happy to start. Chair, you don't mind? Please proceed. Commissioner Williams. >> Uh, Grace, please. Commissioner Williams, for the record, hey, uh, would you explain to me, so compatibility with adjacent residential areas is obviously a big thing for us. I look at this and say 18 to 20 foot walls and a 48t tall building. Is how did we come up? You said 10 feet is standard. To me, that seems like 50 foot tall buildings and 20 foot tall walls. seems a little slim. Would you kind of elaborate on how you guys figure that out? >> There's a couple things. So, our our code does have screening between land uses. Um, and so in that table, it kind of uh discusses, you know, specific screening types. So, it might be a solid fence and 5t of landscaping, a solid fence and um 10 ft of landscaping. It gets bigger, the more impactful the adjacent uses might be. So these two uses together are seen as pretty compatible already. Yes, you have the 18 to 20 foot tall walls, but that's to screen kind of some of these impacts. You also have these multif family buildings which I think are 35 ft tall. Okay, >> so as far as the um compatibility with the height, the uses, we kind of already see that it's a low impact use. Um, and so we're just kind of making sure that RVs that are coming in and out of the site, any activities happening on site are even above and beyond that screening that's already required. >> Okay, great. And then I got one more if you wouldn't mind. Um, the sewer capacity limits was an interesting one that I kind of went through. So, can you tell me like what the city looks at when we're talking about those types of thing? I haven't seen one that said um that it was limited remaining. Is that something you can help me? >> I'll give it my best shot. I mean, engineering does kind of look at these, but what we're looking at is they still have to get a sewer will serve when they come in for building permit. So, um this isn't the point the stage in which we're issuing that letter. >> Okay. Um there's a few uh facilities that are close to capacity or at capacity and so we mentioned that in our staff report. This one's not at capacity yet. Um but we mention kind of where we're at in that capacity just one as a disclosure to the applicant. Hey, just so you know, make sure you get your sewer will serve letter. This is part of that process. Um and two, just to discuss any any potential um solutions or mitigations that might be needed in the future. I don't know if Mike wanted to add anything. >> I think Grace did a good job. This will sew her to the Stee treatment plant, I believe. Um or Lemon Valley. Anyway, North Valley's plants are, as Grace mentioned, near capacity. We there is a flow shave um project that's going on as a mini storage is a very low generator of sewage. So, although we don't anticipate any issues, we always put that in. Just as Grace mentioned, as kind of a heads up, just know that you'll have to do this. disclaimer to the applicant and then they have to go and get that certificate. Yep. >> Regardless, >> we'll have to get it anyway so we're not in a situation we're promising something we can't deliver. >> Awesome. Okay. Thanks, Grace. Appreciate you. >> Uh hand raised. I see Commissioner Delvr. >> Thank you. These questions are for Grace. Uh Commissioner Delvr, I had a couple of questions um based on the the staff report. Just just more sort of clarification. Uh in one section it says number two conditions for approval. Number two is applicant shall apply for a building permit or >> I'm sorry. Yeah, building permit or a business license. And I'm just kind of curious as to why the the or like or just just kind of curious as to what that's about. >> Sure. That's just one of our standard conditions. So, usually conditions, you know, we try to keep one through four somewhat consistent. Um, but it's just covering all of our bases so that um, we make sure that this just isn't approved forever and ever without them doing some sort of work within 18 months. >> I see what you're saying. So, they have to kind of This is like shows progress within that 18 months that they can do that. Hopefully both, but Okay. >> Yeah. Something you just have to have some sort sort of a work within 18 months. >> Gotcha. Gotcha. And this is a little bit to Commissioner Williams line of questioning with the landscaping. Um, you know, it says 10 ft of landscaping, but what does that what does that sort of actually mean? Like, is it I mean, it could could it be anything or are there some guidelines that that we've kind of given them or is it just >> No, that's a great question. So, our code has um specific standards for how far apart the trees need to be. Um, however, you know, I think it's six bushes between each or for each tree that's planted um and how many trees we needed to see planted for each landscape area. So it is very specific. I was more concerned about the width making it kind of above and beyond what's required per code. Got it. As far as what's the the content of the landscape area that will be governed by our code, which is specific to um trees planted, I think it's every 15t and then six bushes per tree, I believe. >> Gotcha. Awesome. I have a few other questions, but I'll let some other folks pop in for now. >> Uh Commissioner Rosera, please. >> Thanks, Ser. Hey, Grace. Uh just a couple for you. Um would you mind uh clarifying how a long-term storage use of fence is the intent of the SMU designation or I guess suburban mixed use for folks who are listening in particularly in relation to like our broader goals as a city around housing availability services and long-term community needs. >> Sure. Um so I kind of briefly talked about it as far as the general commercial zoning and the intent there. Um, we see similar things, if not, you know, maybe more strongly in the SMU designation of our master plan of really seeing those neighborhood supporting uses, um, things like commercial, residential, um, all living kind of together in that zoning district and master plan. Um, and so when we look at this storage unit, it really is a a neighborhood supporting use. It's for people's personal storage. Typically, we see everyone's toys being stored here. Um so that's that's kind of how that advances the intent um of those land uses. Does that >> okay answer your question? >> Yeah. Yeah, that definitely helps. And it's just maybe along those lines as a followup. It's um was was there analysis done to understand the existing storage capacity in that surrounding area relative to like any documented housing or senior housing needs? And if so, like were there any insights that that were yielded that can be shared here? Um are you talking about capacity of other storage units? >> Yeah. Uh not um yeah like what uh capacity of other storage units and just capacity in general or like the existing capacity and need or storage units in that surrounding area. >> Yeah. We don't track um how many vacant units there are. Um, but as far as the what the market's dictating, I mean, you know, everyone has their toys, everyone has a lot of stuff. So, I can tell you that the market is definitely still showing that these are a net positive for applicants. Um, but we we uh yeah, we don't track the the vacancy of surrounding storage units. >> Okay, got it. All right. Thank you. >> Uhhuh. Uh uh Commissioner Joan, I have one question and then I'll go to you back to you Commissioner Delvr. So the um the site plan that was provided in the materials calls out uh the landscaping and detention basin in this wershed. You have to have a additional mitigation per code. Um are they planning to achieve that onsite? The call outs on the uh site plan make it a little unclear. Um, I believe I can let the applicant answer that. Actually, I believe they are, but I'll let them. >> Good evening. Todd Gaml, Wood Rogers for the record. Yeah, in this area that the plan is to have it in that southeast corner. It would be an open air retention basin. And interestingly, RTC and the city of Reno just did one just to the south of that access when they widen Lemon Drive. [clears throat and cough] And so, basically, we just have to do a B of the Truck and Motors regional design manual, do infiltration tests, groundwater tests, and then it just holds it and infiltrates into the ground. >> Okay. And my my question comes from just ensuring that you can provide that capacity on site and you won't need an additional approval to achieve that. Yeah, that's the plan. We haven't done infiltration calcs yet, but I did the three buildings that went into the north for the peaks about five years ago, maybe. And we were able to get infiltration rates to the north and the 7-Eleven just got it done, too. So, the soils in the area should be good for it. >> Okay. >> We still have to do those tests. >> Sure. Understood. As long as it's committed to being on site. So, thank you. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, >> thank you. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, these questions are for Grace, please. Uh, first one is, uh, in the in the findings that you have, you say physical land characteristics are compatible. Um, and so I'm just kind of cur I understand land use compatibility, but I'm just trying to understand the physical land characteristics compatibility piece. >> Sure. Sometimes um we might look at that if there's significant slopes and you had to completely flat grade it. You know, it wasn't hillside adaptable or um trying to think of some other land, maybe a drainage way or something and they just completely covered it up or you know, no consideration for the the way that the land already was. This site is pretty flat, pretty um development ready. Um, so that finding doesn't uh doesn't c require a lot for staff to make that finding in particular to this site. >> Okay, understood. Thank you. Thank you so much. Get I understand that now. And then the other one, it kind of goes back to what Commissioner Pacero was was talking about. Um, you know, we talk about when we're reviewing and we're trying to be consistent with the Reno master plan. And, uh, you know, it states here that it, you know, we're shall weigh competing plans, goals, and policies and strategies. And, and again, you know, I understand that initially this this was, um, planned for for senior housing, and it's very different from um, public, you know, a public storage um, space. And so I'm just kind of curious what that because I mean that's that's my big struggle. It's like how [sighs and gasps] >> you know and again it's you know it's our role to try to figure out you know how how to fit all of this in um and you know and again working with with the developers and the businesses in the area but it was just kind of curious as to sort of how what some of the thought process was around that. >> Sure. Yeah. No, that's helpful. Um so I can clarify the answer. Um I think so for some background, yes, this site was initially approved as a senior housing project, but that entitlement has s since expired and it's essentially null and void. Um it wasn't planned or slated for senior housing from a staff level. So we didn't we didn't look at that and say this is going to be x number of units for seniors. Um a private developer came in proposed senior housing and we approved that use. when new uses or new projects come in, we have to look at those independently of anything else that's been approved. Um, so yeah, it offers some background, but we're not deciding between the two. That project's gone. It's not happening whether or not this gets approved. So, we have to look at this independently and separate of the senior housing. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you for that. That that's all I have. >> Uh, Commissioner Visera. >> Great. Thank you, Chair and Grace. One more. might be quite related to Commissioner Delvr's uh question, but um once this site is developed as a long-term storage use, it's it limits future mixuse or residential options. Is that correct? >> For this particular site, >> correct? Yes. >> Um yes. I mean it once this site's developed as mixed storage, then that that's what the use would be. >> Okay. So it and I keeping that in mind h how should how should our body consider that long-term trade-off when making its findings especially given a lack of data you mentioned isn't tracked on existing storage availability in the region. Well, there's no there's no mixeduse project in front of you. So, there's nothing to weigh it against, I guess. So, you know, we have to look at this as a like I said, an an independent free and independent use. Does it meet the findings? Does it support is it supported by the master plan, which it is. Is it supported? Does it meet our code, which it does. Um, so there's there's not two things that you're weighing here. The zoning, it allows for it. The master plan supports it, and staff was able to make those findings. So those are kind of the criteria we're looking at. We're not saying, well, we wish it could be X. We have to say this this meets the intent and the goals of the policies that we have adopted. >> Great. Thank you. >> So, uh, Commissioner Jockman, I'll ask a question. If I understand this correctly, the the primary um focus that we should have here is we've got a request for hours of operation between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. >> for this use which is aligned with general commercial. And then we also have a request for non-residential development within 300 ft. So can you give me an understanding and perhaps this is better for the applicant of the operations that will persist during those times? That would be my first question. >> Between 11 and six. Yeah, I can let the applicant address that. Um, but when we did talk during our during the review of this, um, it's very limited as far as just people who have units here can have controlled access. I mean, I know that storage units in the area. Um, they're super low impact as is. You don't have a lot of traffic coming to these. Um, and so just the ability to access your stuff if you needed to. Um but we just don't anticipate that there'll be a huge influx of people coming between those times. Okay. Can address that as well. >> Sure. Yeah. If the applicant would like to add [clears throat] >> for the record, Jeff frame with the frame architecture. Yeah. The um the request for access between 11 and six is is just for people to access their either their RV or their or their personal belongings. There's no repair work, no industrial work going on on site. is for storage only. >> Okay. Thank you. So then a follow-up question for staff on this. So can you help can you help give me a comparison as to some other uses that might fall under general commercial that you know if they came forward with this request how might it be different to help understand how this request applies to operations at night? I think a good example is the 7-Eleven right next door because all the surround same surrounding uses, same neighborhood, way more impactful because you have more traffic coming in and out. Um, but again, it's that neighborhood supporting use. Sometimes people needed access a 7-Eleven at 2 a.m. I don't know why, but um, so I think a little bit more impactful. You're going to have more people visiting at night. Uh, this one you'll have low lighting. You won't have office hours. Um, the 7-Eleven will probably have brighter lights. So, just those two being right next to each other, it was hard for staff to say no to this one when we know it's less impactful. Same zoning as the 7-Eleven right next door. Um, same hours. >> And then I my final question to that is I I I assume that that 7-Eleven was granted similar permissions to operate at night. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Delvr. Uh, >> thank you, Commissioner Delvr. I just had uh one other question. It was in I can't remember if it was from the NAB or if it was somebody who just made a public comment, but they were asking about um traffic, especially on that corner there. So, can you kind of help me understand and you know whether that's you Grace or the applicant um like what what the anticipated uh traffic flow will be for entry and exit uh of the storage units. >> Sure. Yep. So, for these uses um we see really low traffic generator. They're really low traffic generators. Um it doesn't warrant a traffic study or a traffic um analysis. when we look at um the trips it generates, it doesn't even hit that threshold of of triggering something like that. >> Got it. Can you help me understand like where what the where the actual access is? Is it on military or or lemon? >> Yes, I can. I apologize. >> Sorry. Thank you. That's okay. >> So, the access will be from lemon. So, you can see here kind of that right where it abuts lemon. It's a pretty small um I guess it doesn't have access for military anyway. So yeah, it would just access right from that uh where it abuts lemon. >> So they might they would like take a U-turn at military and lemon to get into the storage unit if they were coming from like Buck or >> I believe so. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the commission? Hearing none, we will now move to deliberations. Commissioner Bisera. >> Great. Thank you. Um, yeah, thank you, Grace, and uh the applicant for the presentation or at least being available to take our questions. Um, you know, I do I do have some uh just concerns about the long-term fit of a permanent storage use on SMU and just like the loss of future housing and mixed use potential. And it it seems like as I mentioned before worth or uh continues to get uh more of these and maybe um evenly distributed throughout the community or city of Reno proper. Um but you know based on the standards before us and the project's compliance with title 18 that Grace covered uh uh I can make the findings tonight but I did want to just echo those kind of concerns uh around that. >> Commissioner Williams Commissioner Williams for record. Um I I tend to agree with some of the comments made by the other commissioners. Uh, I think anytime an application has that the previous use was going to be senior housing, which we all agree, you know, we probably could use, um, it kind of skews what you believe maybe the outcome should be. But, um, I just I will tell you from a person that lives in a community that has this type of storage and multiple of them on the entrance and on the exit, uh, storage is is used. It's, uh, needed. uh most of them are at or over capacity with weight lists. So I get that aspect to it too. But I it just I do understand the thought that we put in there that use was going to be senior housing, but we can't look at that because that's not in front of us. So um I can make all the findings and I'm happy to support the project. Also, Commissioner Delvr. >> Thank you, Commissioner Delvr. Yeah, I just want to be super clear. I understand that the use is not a senior housing. I think for me it's just difficult to, you know, I'm grappling with again that SMU that once it's, you know, another uh mini storage unit, that's that's what it's going to be. Um, and I don't know sort of long term that this fits in really well with uh Reno's master plan. So that's that's really my my my big concern. It's SMU is again it's mixed use and there's not a lot of mixed use going on up in W4 right now unfortunately. So um unfortunately I can probably make the findings but um just disappointed that you know we're mixed use apparently in W4 means more storage. So >> uh Commissioner Jockman I'll just say a few things. I think it's uh good that you're committed to the um improving the the flood betterment there with the um storage that will be on site as a part of your project. Um hearing the basis of prior approvals associated with the 7-Eleven and uh the request that's before us which is for the nighttime hours of operation primarily and also in uh proximity to the residentially zoned property. Uh I think this is good. I think this is good and adequate. There are a lot of other uses there that could be a lot busier at night. So, um, you know, certainly in comparison to what was previously approved on the adjacent parcel, I think that's good. Uh, we have a lot of mini storage requests that have perhaps been a product of the market lately and um, that comes from uh, a lot of our homes and perhaps the lack of storage in those homes. So this is an ancillary use arguably for the homes that exist in that neighborhood. I think I think this is uh in line with everything that is needed for this application. So I can make the findings. If there are no further deliberations, I will entertain a motion at this time. Uh, Commissioner Williams, I'm happy to make a motion. Uh, in regards to case LDC26-000028, Military Road secure storage, uh, based on the compliance with the applicable findings. I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the application. Um, and I can make all the findings. >> Commissioner Gantini, I second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. We will move on to the next item on our agenda. The next item is C3 staff report for possible action. This is a recommendation to city council LDC26-29 whispering road zoning map amendment. Miss Picotti, we will begin with a staff presentation. Please proceed. >> Good evening, chair, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Leah Picotti and I am an associate [clears throat] planner with the city of Reno. This evening, I am presenting a zoning map amendment for a property that we have called Whispering Road. The subject site is out in Verdi. It's just south of the I80 and adjacent to Quy Ranch Road. The site that we're looking at today is just under a quarter acre. And the applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment from public facilities to general commercial. So what you see on the board there is uh on the left hand side is the existing public facility zoning and on the right is the proposed general commercial zoning. Um it's a little bit strange out here because there's a couple of different things going on. One is that we're right on the city limits. So the property just to the north of this and the property just to the south are actually in Wo County, this particular property was annexed into the city in 2015. The other thing that we don't really understand here is how this ended up being public facility being that it's not a parcel that actually is involved with any kind of government facilities or public infrastructure or anything like that. The assumption that I've made here is that that uh that long public facility uh strip right there is uh owned by Truckucky Meadows Water Association and the railroad is right on the other side. So I'm thinking that when they did the zoning in this area, they sort of assumed that because this parcel was long and it was right in between these other two sort of infrastructure type things that they did at public facility. What they didn't do though was uh master plan it um public quasi public which is normally what you see for a master plan that has a public facility zoning. It is suburban mixed use. And while PF does conform to the suburban mixed use, it doesn't really make sense to have it public facility being that everything else that you see there, all that GC zoning down to the south [snorts] are all fairly intense light industrial type uses. there's no residential zoning in the area. So, it makes sense that we would be asking for this. Uh key issues that we looked at were compatibility with surrounding zoning, conformance with Reno municipal code, and conformance with that master plan land use designation. Um here you can see the city of Reno um line there and how it kind of juts into this property and then juts back out. So development standards are going to be modified slightly. Public facilities have a little bit of an increased setback as opposed to general commercial. In this particular case, it doesn't seem like that's going to affect anybody except the railroad or the Tumba ditch. So staff is all right with that. We do have a little bit of a a higher height allowed in general commercial. It is 65 ft. However, it does require a step back of 1 ft for everything over 35 ft, which because of the way that this parcel was shaped, I don't think you can actually get up to 65 ft with the required stepbacks. General Commercial does uh restrict it to a maximum of 45 dwelling units per acre. Public facility doesn't have a maximum density. And then your lot width is pretty much the same. Zoning map amendment findings are on the board. Staff was able to make all the findings on this particular one. We really look at it as a cleanup item. Recommended motion is on the board. I'm available for questions and the applicant does not have a presentation, but they are also here and available to answer questions as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Hearing there is not an applicant presentation. We will move forward with disclosures. Uh, Commissioner Gonfini. >> Commissioner Confantini read and reviewed the materials. >> Commissioner Jockman, same. >> Commissioner Williams, familiar with the area and read and reviewed material. Commissioner Delvr uh read and reviewed materials and I am familiar with the area. >> Commissioner Bera I am familiar with the site or area and read and reviewed provided materials. >> Commissioner Roer the same. >> Uh madame clerk uh do we have any public comment under this item? >> I do have a public comment in person for Michael Pony. >> Uh please step forward. State your name and you will have three minutes. [clears throat] >> Good evening members of the commission. Michael Pony McDonald Chrono on behalf of the applicant. Uh Ryan Coutz, the owner of Whispering Rose is with me in the audience today. Really don't have much to add to the staff report. It's a pretty straightforward zone change. It's a a cleanup item, probably long overdue. Uh bringing the property into closer conformance consistent with the master plan. would like to thank staff uh for their cooperation in uh suggesting this kind of proactive cleanup solutionoriented approach. Uh we're happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you, madam clerk. Do we have any other request to speak? >> I do not have any requests to speak in chambers and I do not have anyone on Zoom with their hand raised. >> Hearing none, we will close public comment and proceed to questions from the commission. Commissioner Visera. >> Great. Thank you. Hey Leah, just a quick one for you. Just more uh uh maybe additional context for for how we think about things. So since this is a zoning change and not a site plan, how should the commission think about the the broader range of uses GC allows here since it's more than just beyond what the applicant's current intended use is? >> Commissioner Bisera, that's a good question. and Leah Picotti for the record. I think that in general as this area grows, we're seeing a large housing development going out there at the time. We will see more of this suburban mixeduse corridor right here um converting to these types of uses maybe not just general commercial, but I think that some of the existing uses that are there um operate under conditional use permits. We have quite a bit of outdoor storage, warehouse type uses. So, while it does have that suburban mixed use and we do have existing general commercial zoning, it it it may become in the future uh more intense zoning. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Leah. Appreciate it. >> Uh Commissioner Delvr, >> thank you. Hi, Thea. Uh Commissioner Delvr, just a quick question. It looks like the uh the change in the zones uh potentially increases uh building height from I think 45 ft to 65 ft. And I know obviously there's no uh you know current plans necessarily, but just I just kind of wanted to clarify a couple of the other things like that that might [laughter] impact that area. >> Yes. And and that's also an excellent question. So, the site is currently developed with a 2800 square foot office type building. Um, should that building be demolished in the future, the applicant under GC zoning would be able to go up to 65 ft in height, but because there's a step back of 1 foot required after 35 ft um in height, I I'm not sure how feasible it is to build something up that high in that area. Um, but it would be permitted, but being that there's no residential zoning and the surrounding uses are more intense than this use, staff is okay with that. >> Fair. Absolutely. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. >> Do we have any other questions? Hearing none, we will move to deliberations. And if yeah, please proceed. >> Sorry. Sorry about that. I was just going to say it seems pretty uh kind of a a standard request before us and you know, clean up and all that. And uh uh I'm I'm comfortable with uh supporting this and happy to make a motion uh when the time comes. >> I see no other requests to speak. So, Commissioner Bisera, please proceed. >> Great. Thank you. Uh in the matter of LDC26-000029 Whispering Road zoning map amendment based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance and I can make all the findings. >> Commissioner Williams second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. Uh motion carries unanimously. That concludes this agenda item. That item was C3. Uh per the uh staff announcements earlier, we will not be taking D1. That will come up before our next meeting. There will not be another uh regional meeting prior to our next city meeting. So that moves us on to item E, Truckucky Meadows regional planning liaison report. Uh, Commissioner Roar Meer, would you like to give an update on this? >> Yes. Uh, we had a steering committee meeting. That was the first that was, uh, attended by me and then Rob Pierce, current chair, and, uh, Marilyn Kramer, who's from Sparks. Those meetings will be held now quarterly. And I was appointed just because I was the, uh, former chair. Um and then Marilyn will be the next chair. But um also they no we did not have a meeting and the meeting tomorrow was cancelled. So we have not had a larger meeting in a bit. Um and I also wanted to say that I um have interest in also um having a swap out. I know that we have on the fourth agenda a new regional planning commissioner from Reno. And I also would like to have someone replace my position. >> Thank you for bringing that up. So we will uh I I believe that will conclude the item E Truckucky Meadows regional planning liaison report. And uh staff, would you like to comment on this at all? We're moving to a staff item next anyway. So >> Sure. Um, Commissioner Roire, if if that is your intent, if you could please uh send us a letter of resignation from the regional planning commission if that is your intent. So that because you do actually have a remaining term, so we'll need your resignation in order to put that on the agenda if that's what you choose to do so. >> Okay. Thank you. I think I must be coming to the end here pretty soon anyway. So happy to do that. >> Great. If if you're ready to to move on to item F, I do have proceed item F. Yep. >> Um at also at our next meeting on the 4th of February, uh Angela Fouse will be presenting a training on obstacles and solutions for infill development. So that will be on our next next meeting and the first of the training series that I announced at our last meeting. Thank you, Mr. That moves us to item G, public comment. Madame Clerk, do we have any request to speak under this item? >> I do not have any request to speak forms in person. If there's anyone on Zoom who would like to make comment during this final public comment period, please raise your hand. Not seeing anyone on Zoom. >> All right, that brings us to uh item H, adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Commissioner Gonini, motion to adjurnn. >> Commissioner Williams, second. >> Motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. >> Meeting adjourned. >> Right. Good night.