Yeah, we'll get started in a few minutes. So, uh, get your comment cards in if you would like to speak on any item on the agenda or under public comment. All right, I think we can call to order the May 8th planning commission hearing. Um, we're going to begin with the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Williams, why don't you kick us off? I alian Right. Thank you. We'll go with roll call. Sylvia Villan Noea here. Manny Bera here. Christina Delviar here. Jacob Williams here. David Jockman here. Alex Belto here. Carrie Roier here. We have a quorum and we're all in person today. Hey. All right. We will open public comment. This is public comment for any item that's either on agenda or general public comment. Um we ask that anybody giving public comment under any item uh make sure you fill out a comment card. Do we have any general public comment? Okay, let me read this first. Okay. Members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the Zoom link provided on the agenda, specifically https colonlinks. no.gov/planning with a capital P plann I g05-08-25. It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded 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 um public comment that was general in nature that was forwarded to the planning commission and has been entered into the record. Um I did not receive any public comment cards for this item. And do we have anybody on Zoom? We do not have anybody on Zoom raising their hand for this item either. All right, seeing no public comment, we will close general public comment at this time and move to approval of the minutes. Uh may I get a motion for the minutes for March 19th? Valto so moved. Commissioner Ber second. All in favor? I I seeing none opposed. Moving to the minutes of April 2nd. Okay. I'm rusty. Okay. All right. How about for the minutes of April 2nd? Commissioner Venueva, I have to abstain. I was not present at that meeting. Commissioner Valtz, I'll move to approve. Commissioner Delvr, I will second. All in favor? I I. All right. Um, approval of the minutes is complete. So, we are going to go to the public hearings and we're going to mix things up a little in order uh for the sake of having nine development items and a sign ordinance. uh some of these items could be handled in an expedited manner. So I would leave it to the commission to recommend items that uh they feel could be handled that way. Any suggestions? Commissioner Ber for the record. I think in reviewing the items before us, it seems like maybe item 5.3, 5.4, 5.7, 5.8 may be expedited in nature. But uh I would love to hear from the rest of the body as well. What was I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? Uh yes. Uh 5.3, 5.4, 5.7, and 5.8. And for those in the audience, that is the um gas line capacity project, the landscape storage yard, um the Milness family zoning map and the uh Champions, oh, sorry, not that one. The security circle zone change and the Champion Chevrolet. Does anybody in the audience wish to speak on those items? Do we have anybody here for those items that are not the applicants or developers? Okay, seeing none, I would um suggest we handle those in an expedited manner and move them to the front of the agenda so that people can um staff time can be economized. So why don't we begin um with item 5.3 LDC 250047 Silver Lake Tamoya gas capacity project and handling that in an expedited manner. We would not require a presentation from staff. Does anybody wish to um I guess I open public comment or do I do disclosure? I would take public comment. Okay, we'll open items 5.3 for public comment. Okay, I did not receive any public comment for this item. Um, no request to speak forms were received and I don't have anybody on Zoom that wishes to speak on this item either. Very good. We'll close public comment and we will go to the commissioners for disclosures. Uh, Commissioner Alto, no disclosures. Uh, Commissioner Jockman met with the applicant. Commissioner Williams, uh, no disclosures. Commissioner Royer, no disclosures. Commissioner Villaina, no disclosures. Commissioner Delvr, I have visited the site, read the materials, spoken to representatives from Sierra Sage Golf Course. In addition, Sierra Sage Golf Course is my home golf course and I am a member of the ladies club there and a volunteer for volunteer coach for first te of Northern Nevada of which Mike and Chris Mazafari who are who run the first te organization as well as Sierra Sage Golf Course. Um, I contacted the city attorney's office and was advised that I do not have a disqualifying conflict, but I wanted to disclose these relationships and to state for the record that I can be fair and impartial when considering this matter. Commissioner Bisera, for the record, uh, familiar with the site, read and reviewed material, and met with the applicant's representative. All right. Um, with that I suppose we can open this for discussion and questions to staff or the applicant at this time. Is the applicant okay with waving their presentation and also the city's presentation? I am. Yes, I am. Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. Did anyone have questions or discussion prior to the motion? I had Commissioner Ber for the record just one question because I know I I believe for the applicants representative just just clarifying one is that we did meet with Mr. Sullivan from NV Energy prior and I just want to make sure that the current fill in for Mr. Sullivan I believe was caught up and did you feel like you needed to share anything else in the exchange since you're uh I believe covering for Mr. Sullivan at the moment? Yes, sir. Yes, please come to the microphone. Thank you. You guys have questions? No, ju just that one. Is it was there anything that you needed to elevate or clarify or Okay. I think Please state your name. Oh, I'm sorry. William Krueger, Envy Energy. Um Mr. Sullivan told me that he spoke with a number of you and you guys have have uh disclosed that and we're good with the conditions on on the um staff report. Great. And then so one clarifying question, Commissioner Ber for the record. I think when we spoke with Mr. yourself and a couple of us. The question was about um if you guys were going to be able to sort out some kind of late night work of the sort cuz there was an adjacent neighborhood. Not too close but pretty close. And so the the closest is about 600 ft away. Okay. And our plan is to not work at night and we feel like we can come up with some mitigating uh you know alternative routes to keep the golf course in uh in working order during the day. And yeah, we have no plans to to work at night. Solid, Mr. Krueger. Thank you so much. I think Commissioner Belto looked like he was uh ready to do something. Uh yes, thank you so much. In the matter of case number LGC25-000047, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions and recommend that the city council sponsor the corresponding Truckucky Meadows Regional Plan amendment. And I can make all the findings. This is Commissioner Delvr. I second that. All in favor? I I Hang on. What was that last part? You said sponsor the amendment. What was the I'm sorry. Can you repeat the um motion? Just so I can make sure that I'm on the same page. Sure. It's um it can be found on page 293 of the staff report. Uh based upon compliance of the applicable findings, I move to approve the cup subject to conditions and recommend city council sponsor the corresponding Truckucky Meadows Regional Plan amendment. Okay, thank you. We have a motion and a second. Sorry, did we just vote? Where's my brain today? We did. We did vote. We did vote. You asked all in favor. All in favor and motion passed unanimously. Good luck with your project. Thanks. Thanks everybody. All right. We'll get it right this time. Um, next we have the item 5.4, LDC25-000036, Martinez Landscaping Storage Yard. Um, handle it in an expedited manner. This one actually would like a presentation on. Very good. We'll hear from staff first. Okay. Good evening, members of the planning commission. Jeff Foster, associate planner. For the record, tonight I'm bringing you LDC2-36. I will try and make it as expedited as possible. If the mouse controller would work, use the mouse. Okay. So, the project site is about 2.81 acres in size um on the west side of Nola Way uh near North Virginia Street. It's an undeveloped parcel that has was vacant until the applicant purchased it and established a landscape maintenance business. The requirement for a conditional use permit, which was identified during business license review, was not obtained prior to establishing operations on the site. Uh, the request is a CUP to allow for outdoor storage for a contractor's yard as well as non-residential development adjacent to residentially zoned property and the applicant may develop buildings for its business operations in the future which would require a separate minor site plan review. So, next slide. Okay, so as we zoom in, you have a couple of mobile homes to the north and you have a couple of single family residences to the west. a single family residences and a vacant parcel to the south and a single family residence and a trucking business across North Virginia Street to the east. Key issues that staff looked at and compatibility with surrounding uses, site operations and layout and operational impacts. Next slide. Zoning district mixeduse suburban. Next slide. Uh the master plan is suburban mixed use. As we turn to the next slide, which will talk about compatibility, there are several light industrial uses that incorporate outdoor storage uh up and down North Virginia Street in the project vicinity, such as Reno Rock and Trans, Reno Rock Transport at 3900 North Virginia and United Reynolds at 3750 North Virginia. Those are the two pictures you can see here. Uh the hours of operation for the proposed project are generally between 6:30 in the morning and 7 at night with most operations taking place between 7:00 and 4:00 p.m. All work will be done off-site. The only on-site activity is basically morning pickup and drop off operations. Uh as a result, uh the use is considered to be generally compatible with surrounding land uses. Um, I was going to go into a lot of detail on the project operations. I'll save that if you have further questions. Uh, the site layout is basically a paved employee parking area that's adjacent to Nola Way. Most of the site is a fenced storage area with material storage in the northwest portion. Uh, and if the clicker was working, you would see my yellow circle on the material storage. The equipment storage is in the southwest portion. And there's an area for storage containers along the southern property line. Uh the request, sorry, the applicant is requesting a 10-ft max storage height um uh and security fence per screening per code. However, the applicant believes that an 8ft uh fence screening will suffice for their equipment and materials. Next slide. Okay. So, as as far as the site layout, continuing on with that, the MS zone requires 20% landscaping. Uh most of the landscaping that's proposed is along the western property line near the residences as well as the eastern property line uh near North Virginia Street to minimize the need for additional screening. Condition 8 limits the height of stacked material to no taller than the height of the fence. Next slide. As far as operational impacts, condition five is recommended to prohibit on-site vehicle and and equipment washing. Uh noise from the project is generally limited to people entering and exiting vehicles, uh voices, delivery, pickup in materials, pickup of materials and equipment and vehicle startup and idling and movement. Condition number 10 is recommended to prohibit vehicle idling, which is typical for storage yards um that we've conditioned in the past. Potential air quality issues from vehicle idling and dust generated by vehicle movements will be addressed by condition 10 as well as the compacted aggre aggregate base that is recommended for all areas that receive regular vehicle traffic. And condition number 11 uh is recommended for ongoing maintenance of the site to minimize dust generation and other environmental impacts. Next slide. Here are the recommended findings for a conditional use permit. Staff can make all recommended findings. And here's the recommended motion. The applicant is available, is not planning on making a presentation, but is available for questions. Thank you. Um, we will go to uh public comment at this time. Michelle, do we have anyone on Zoom or any uh comment cards in the audience? Hang on just one second. Okay. I did not receive any um request to speak forms for this item. Uh we did not receive any public comment on this item. Is there anybody on Zoom? Okay. And u there's nobody on Zoom that wishes to speak. Great. We will close public comment and go to the commissioners for disclosures. We'll start to the left this time. Sure. Commissioner Ber for the record. Uh familiar with the site, read and re reviewed material. Commissioner Delvier, same. Commissioner Villaina read the materials. No other disclosures. Commissioner Rory Meyer the same. Commissioner Williams the same. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Commissioner Valtz, no disclosures. Does uh anyone on the commission have questions for the applicant or staff? I do. For staff for Jeff. Hi Jeff. Um hello. How do we uh how do you define what's outdoor uh storage defined as? So, it's basically um storage of vehicles, materials, things like that. Um, does it matter how they're assembled? Does it matter if the vehicle's how how they're for example, if the vehicle is in disrepair, tires not on the vehicle, missing the I guess the rear um if the vehicle's not in I guess it's full capacity, does it matter or I mean, so what's the difference between a salvage yard and outdoor storage? Good question. And I didn't uh I don't have the tip the definition of a salvage yard. Mike, do you have it? Bear with me for just a minute. I'm looking up in the code. I can read you the definition. So outdoor storage is uh defined as property used for the long term more than 72 hours retention of materials, machinery, large vehicles, including boats and recreational vehicles and/or equipment. Regardless of whether materials, machinery, large vehicles or equipment are to be bought, sold, repaired stored incinerated or discarded. New or used motor vehicle sales, and rental display, and parking shall not be defined as outdoor storage. The vehicles are operable if the vehicles are operable. It's not outdoor storage. So, they can't be operable. If if they're if they're on display, vehicle sales and rental display must be operable. So it you could have inoperable vehicles could be included in outdoor storage. Okay. And so what's the difference between so is and so a salvage yard salvage or reclamation is reclamation of products means a facility or area for storing, keeping, selling, dismantling, salvaging scrap or discarded material or equipment not listed elsewhere in this chapter. So what's the difference between the two? So they can store, for example, a truck, a non-operable truck, but they're not it's not they're not salvaging that out. They're not selling parts off of that truck, for example. It's not a salvage yard. Okay. Um and so the neighbors in this case, if they're surrounding neighbors, it let me take a look at this map. I think. Sorry. I didn't have access to my email for a while, so I um I just want to make sure that there's not going to be issues with the neighbors in the event. Oh, okay. So, is So, this is an industrial zone or it's suburban, mixed use. So, it's mixed use suburban. Yes. Mixed suburban, which is different than industrial. Correct. Okay. And it does allow outdoor storage with a conditional use permit. With a conditional Okay. And then no issues with the neighbors? Nope. No, we we received no feedback from any neighbors. Um and then the site will of course be screened. Um and the other conditions of approval related to uh idolling, prevention of idling, things like that to minimize, you know, noise, air quality, things like that. Okay. But yes, we received absolutely no comment from many neighbors. Okay. All right. No other questions. Thank you. Uh oh, don't sit down. Don't sit down. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, I had a question. I think I emailed it to you. I can't remember. Um, about the gas line that looks like it goes through and across Nola and then sort of on the corner of that property. There's no gas line there that's going to impact. Um, I was shaking my head because I did not receive that email from you, so I'm not aware of what you're talking about. Um, so like and do you know of any gas line? No. Okay. because there's like all these signs all over the place that say gas pipeline. Be careful. Be careful. Be careful. Okay. Um and it goes across Nola and then it looks like it it goes into the top uh corner of their property and then across the culvert onto the other side. So, I just want to I know that if they do anything there, they'll have to likely get other uh signoffs and stuff like that, but that was that was just that was the only issue that I had. I just want to make sure that people are aware of the gas pipeline that was there. Fair point. And and um with uh this particular conditional use permit, there will be a requirement or is a requirement to submit for a site improvements building permit. Got it. And things like that would be fleshed out during the building permit process. Perfect. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for the commissioners? Um one more. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. Uh question for Steph. Uh for Jeff. Uh so single family. So, it's adjacent to single family. Um, and uh Okay. Sorry. I'm just trying to make I just don't want there to be any issues with regard to what are what's some of the um and I can see up here obviously um that there is some single family. I guess it looks to the south. Um but what what are the surrounding properties? What what type of uses are those? So you have single family uh two single family residences to the west on that large parcel that uh is parallel to the site the rectangular parcel and you have single family residences uh to the south and a vacant parcel there to the north you have two mobile homes just looking at that and then to the east across Virginia Street there's a single family residence and a trucking business. A trucking business. Okay. And then as far as when you guys made the determination as far as character when you guys were assessing character with the community can you just touch on that for me briefly to make sure I just want to make sure that the assessment was in terms of the compatibility. Yeah. Yeah. So, um there are multiple other um similar uses and I pointed out two of them in particular, the Reno Rock Transport and the United Reynolds that are nearby on North Virginia Street that have similar types of out outdoor storage operations for vehicles and equipment as you can see in the picture here. There was actually another one that was even closer. It was actually another uh outdoor storage for a landscape contractor that was closer to the site. um they've since gone out of business, but it was not too far from the existing site. So, there are multiple of of similar types of uses up and down North Virginia Street in this area. So, that combined with the benign nature of the use, uh the fact that there are effectively only people there in the morning and the afternoon picking up cars and dropping off cars, there's not a lot of on-site activity during the day. So, it's just it's a it's a low impact use basically. Yeah, I guess my concern and it's not really a concern. And I I just wanted to better understand the assessment mainly because you we do have single family there and and we're saying it's compatible but at the same time it's a bunch of storage and there's really no differentiation between salvage to storage. I you know it's almost an eyesore. It could be posed as an eyesore. Keep keep in mind that that that in terms of outdoor storage the code the main thing that outdoor store that the code requires for outdoor storage is exactly that screening. It's to deal with that issue of visual um non not being visually appealing. So code um requires the the screening element to be in place for this type of use. Um and so that's that's definitely part of uh what we will be requiring or what we are. And then what about like the environmental concerns because the vehicles don't have to be operable and we have a bunch of old vehicles, old refrigerators, old whatever. I don't know what's going to be out there leaking who knows what antireeze into the into the ground and then it's right next to single family. Are those considerations that were taken in as well or um does that not is that not factored in? Well, so again, the outdoor storage that we're talking about is not it's not a junkyard. This is an outdoor storage for a landscaping business. So there it's for their equipment that they're using on a daily basis for landscaping jobs. But there's nothing What about a future? Yeah. Well, right now, but it's an entitlement. So, right now it's a a landscaping business, but what if in the future someone purchases this lot and then it's not it's no longer used for um the purpose it's being used for today, but it is in fact used to store junk. So, that's I mean this is an entitlement. So, anytime we give these rights, we give an entitlement that's not just for today's um if I can interject, that would be a separate a junk card, for example, is is a separate use is defined in our code that would not be permitted. They would have to if I don't even believe a junk card is allowed in in MS, even if it was, it would have to come back through a conditional use permit process. So, this this would be limited to outdoor storage. it. What if it's not a and I know it sounds like I mean petty, but okay, it's not a salvage yard, but they're storing junk because it's a storage outdoor storage. That's what's being permitted here. And I get in this case, it's for for um a business, a landscaping, but that's the owners currently. So, uh respectfully, Commissioner Villain Noea, I would go back to the definition that Mike read a few minutes ago. Outdoor storage is for vehicles, machinery, and equipment and materials. So it it by that definition, it's going to be limited to those types of things, not just, you know, someone, you know, calling for used refrigerators to be dropped off there. So yeah, I don't I don't see that use as being something the hypothetical. And I and you're absolutely right that the the conditional use permit runs with the land. So you are correct. I just don't see that that particular type of potential future scenario would would actually be in play with the definition of outdoor storage because they would have to come back for a if if it was another use like a junkyard or something. It would have to come back or it it may not even be allowed in the MS zone. I don't have Okay, that's a good point too. It may not even be allowed in the M and again it's it's right next to single family. So that's why these concerns are coming up because yes, I'm the applicant today is probably the, you know, going to be a good neighbor and they're going to do everything right, but because it runs with the land, I'm just trying to think of the risk to that community and whether or not it truly is compatible with this space, with this area and the neighborhood in the community. And also um we can always rely on the fact that if things become a nuisance hazard, you have code enforcement, you have other mechanisms within the city's, you know, purview or jurisdiction that can come into play if and when something like that becomes problematic down the road. Okay. Thank you. Just just for the record, a salvage yard, a wrecking yard, or junkyard are all prohibited uses in the MSO. Great. Chair, I do have a quick question. Uh Jeeoff, I have a condition number 12 for this CUP says that the business proprietor shall follow all state, local, and federal government regulations to prevent surface water and groundwater contamination. It then requires utilizing proper containers and uh in a secured location and training personnel to manage those containers. Do you think that that uh condition on the condition use permit would alleviate some of some of uh Commissioner Villoeva's concerns? Valid point, Commissioner Velto. Yes. So, they're not actually proposing uh the use of any u hazardous or toxic materials or storage of those uh types of materials on site at this point in time, but because um actually on the RGM uh conditional use permit for an outdoor storage for a landscape contractor's yard from a couple years ago, we had a similar condition, I felt it was appropriate to include it on this uh permit as well. um just in case those kinds of things came into play down the road and absolutely they that would be a requirement to to address those kinds of issues in terms of things leaking into the soil and whatnot. Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner Ber. For the record, I just wanted to just make a statement that uh I believe that Commissioner Villanova raises some legitimate questions and it's always good to air those out and I'm glad that we have the safeguards in place because I think this one is akin to a couple that we've had before by the Pepper Mill and along Fourth Street and McCarron, right? So, um thank you Jeff for providing those safeguards and Commissioner Villaina for those legitimate concerns. I'm ready to make a motion. Chair, yes, please. Thank you. In the matter of case number LDC25-36, I hadn't heard that before. Based upon compliance to the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings. This is Commissioner Delvr. I second that and can make all the findings. All right. All in favor? I hearing none opposed. Congratulations with your project. All right. Uh we will move to item 5.7 LDC25-000052 Champion Chevrolet on Harvard Way and we'll handle this expedited unless anybody would like presentation from staff. Okay. Um we will go to public comment. Do we have any public comment? I did not receive any public comment for this item. No one um registered to speak for this item and there's no one on Zoom for this item. Okay. Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to the commission for disclosures. Starting with Commissioner Belto. Uh, Commissioner Belto, no disclosures. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Commissioner Williams, read the material. Commissioner Royer, same. Commissioner Veneuela, no disclosures. Commissioner Delvr, no disclosures. Commissioner Vera, read and review material. Familiar with the site. Okay. Now, uh, does anybody have questions for the applicant or actually is the applicant okay with proceeding in this manner? Yes, we are. Okay, very good. Um, are there any questions or discussion from the commissioners? Commissioner Bisera, ready? Oh, I was going to say ready to make a motion. Go for it, Commissioner Roshambo. Okay, I don't have it on screen, but let me see if I can do this. Um, all right. In the matter of LDC Commissioner Ber for the record in the matter of LDC25-000052 Champion Chevrolet Harvard Way based upon compliance with the applicable findings I recommend that the planning commission approved the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make on the findings. Commission Ball second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I Any opposed? Seeing none, congratulations on the approval of your project. Okay, moving to item 5.8, LDC25-0048, security circle zone change handled in the same manner. Um, oh, would you like to hear? Yeah, this one since this one's zoning map amendment. Um, I do just want to hear a little bit about this one as well. Okay, then we'll leave why don't we leave that one as part of the regular agenda because we'll have closed the expedited items. Um that would put us back on our regular order which would bring us to the sign ordinance item 5.1. Hi Lauren. Hi. Good evening commissioners. For the record, Lauren Knox, senior planner. This agenda item is a text amendment case number TXT23-0000002 and it's related to title 18 uh sign regulations. So first I just want to highlight the very iterative process used to create the vetted draft of proposed changes before you today. So we had multiple rounds of public feedback opportunities. Each one was used to refine the draft that we brought forward in the um ordinance before you. We discussed the overall changes with the planning commission last in October, but I want to give you just a brief refresher on some of the process pieces as well as some of the overall changes and then we'll talk about some key issues. So, just a refresher, in June of 2022, council initiated a sign code text amendment. In the spring of 2023, we held some initial signed stakeholder meetings to discuss, okay, what needs to change from our current code? and that helped us to develop this first draft of sign code changes. In September of 2024, we held stakeholder meetings and public meetings to discuss that first draft. We brought that draft before planning commission to get feedback as well. Planning commission provided some feedback to go engage with the downtown business stakeholders and we also brought that same draft to city city council. So with all of that feedback, we then developed the second draft. That second draft went public and we held stakeholder meetings in February of this year. And then with that feedback we received from the stakeholders, we have the draft the ordinance draft before you tonight. So in terms of overall proposed changes, the draft ordinance attached to your staff report indicates the changes that were made in red lines, but also includes annotations as to why each change was made and and how it was made. But I'm going to provide you just a general summary of kind of all of those changes. And before I jump in, I want to say in terms of overall changes, we had very little feedback and much of it was actually positive. There were a few changes requested which we incorporated into the draft before you where possible. So let's go ahead and walk through some of those changes. So first off, we removed the allowance for all parcels within the gaming overlay to have virtually unlimited signage and limited this allowance to non-restricted gaming facilities only. This is one of the key issues. I'm going to touch on it a little bit more in a future part of this presentation. We included an exemption for on-remise sign related to government or official signs. We made the triggers for entitlement review consistent for signage. We included an allowance for schools to have digital signs. Again, this is a big key issue. So, we will talk about this a little bit further in the presentation. We addressed the need to move signage for public projects. That's like roadway widenings, for example. We included a statement on content neutrality to address federal laws. We modified and added some uh sign related definitions where needed and there's just some general clarifying language pieces throughout that um the draft ordinance. The bigger part of the changes is to table 5.1. So that's our permanent onremise sign regulations by zoning district. This was something that in our very initial early stakeholder meetings many of the science stakeholders said this is a a part that we have a lot of contention with because there's just so many inconsistencies. It's difficult to administer. It's confusing. So, I'm going to walk through some of those a little bit more specifically, but very generally, we tried to be more clear on the regulations. We tried to simplify and we tried to be consistent. For example, we had multiple different ways to measure the different signage allowed. Sometimes it's based on square footage of a wall. Sometimes it's based off square footage of a full business building, a business frontage versus a parcel frontage. So, we just tried to be very consistent for us and for our users. Uh, certain zoning districts were also made consistent. So if they are the same relative intensity, we tried to make those those standards consistent as well. We had some missing zoning districts that weren't included in the table. So we added those. Uh we incorporated the footnotes where possible. So we had about 13 footnotes at the end of this sign table. It was very difficult to maneuver. You're kind of bouncing back and forth. So we tried to include those where it was feasible to do so. Uh we included clear verbiage that allows for the gaming facilities to have unlimited signage. Again, I'll touch on that in in the future of this presentation. We memorialized a process of freestanding sign allowance to be based on a parcel or in a commercial center. That's something we're already doing, but it wasn't in code that clearly. And then we amended some of the illumination standards for residential and UT zoning districts. So, key issues. So, this is that unlimited signage issue. So, uh, you may remember the conversation we had back in October, and there was a significant amount of public feedback received on this item. Just to provide some quick background, currently code allows for unlimited signage within the entire gaming overlay area. This allows every business within basically a 2,00 uh acre overlay to have that signage, which was not intentional. So, what we first brought forward in one of those uh previous drafts was that we would allow that unlimited signage only in the mixeduse entertainment district and for casinos. And we were trying to replicate what was in code prior to this big change to the gaming overlay. You may remember there was quite a bit of public comment generally from Scenic Nevada regarding staff's proposed change in allowing the unlimited signage downtown. This body provided us with some feedback to go engage with those downtown business stakeholders. See, is that something we really need? do we need to maintain that kind of signage allowance? Um, so we did just that. We held stakeholder meetings. We also took kind of a survey of those downtown businesses and the signage that's there. And what we basically found was that there was no strong expression of the need to keep that unlimited signage um, aside from those casino uses. We brought our findings to the city council in December and council's feedback at that point was to remove that unlimited allowance aside from the unlimited allowance for casinos. So, the proposed draft before you tonight does just that. Uh, just to summarize, we removed the allowance for unlimited signage for every parcel in the gaming overlay and maintained that allowance for casino gaming facilities. Uh, we didn't receive any negative feedback at our most recent stakeholder meetings on this issue. the casino industry representatives did ask for a little bit more verbiage just to be clear and make it very known that the casinos still have that unlimited um signage which we did include in the draft before you. The second key issue is in regards to digital signage for schools. So at that same city council meeting in December, council provided feedback to work with the Wo County School District to address their desire for digital signage for schools. The newest draft incorporates that. So, we worked with the school district to develop specific requirements to mitigate impacts to neighboring properties. We had multiple meetings to try to come together to develop something that all parties could agree with or at least live with, but unfortunately, we couldn't get fully there. Um, we engaged with Scenic Nevada on this as well and held held multiple meetings. So, the proposed draft really attempts to balance the school district's needs with the public concerns. Uh many of Scenic Nevada's recommendations were addressed and included in the requirements, but not all. So, let's talk about some of those specific requirements we included. Uh we attempted to mitigate impacts to neighboring properties by limiting the operating hours of that sign. Limiting the nits to 150 nits, that's the brightness of a sign between sunset and sunrise. So, when it's dark outside, trying to limit that brightness. Limiting the animated portion to 32 ft. uh the content must remain for eight seconds and there can be no video flashing or blinking. Also, generally these types of signs must follow our standard animated sign standards. Aside from needing to go through a discretionary review for residential proximity, the thought process here is that we've included all of these mitigation measures which would typically be a condition to one of these um and it would be conditioned again through that that project review process. So, um, that's why we suggest not having that requirement for this. Washer County School District is supportive of the draft language. However, as stated during the public engagement, uh, meetings, concerns were expressed generally by Scenic Nevada regarding that digital sign allowance. So, some of those concerns included being a bit tighter on those hours of operation, having more time between that message content changing, having the signs turned off when school is not in s in session, some concerns over public safety with regards to drivers, uh concerns over the sign brightness and viewsheds, concerns over the compatibility with the residential characteristics of an area. A lot of time these school campuses are within residential areas. um only allowing one per campus versus defaulting basically to our um standard code, concerns over health impacts from the bright signage, and the creeping of digital sign allowances to other types of uses. So again, we tried to balance the school's needs with the concerns expressed. I also want to point out that we did hear some positive feedback and support for this type of signage, generally saying that the requirements put in place would adequately mitigate some of the concerns. All right. So to sum it all up, we had many points of engagement throughout the process to bring you this refined draft. In terms of overall changes we discussed, we had very little public feedback. Much of it was positive with a few minor amendments. We discussed the two key issues. Again, the unlimited signage concern is resolved in the draft before you for deliberation. And again, we tried to balance the school district needs with the concerns expressed during the engagement process. So with that, that concludes my presentation. I have a motion overhead and I'm available for any questions you have. Thank you. We have received public comment. So, we will move into public comment and we'll start with public comment here in chambers and then take any public comment that's online. U Mark Ray. Good evening. Mark Ray. I live at 282 Outlook Drive here in Reno. I'm a lawyer and I'm with Scenic Nevada. Today I'm here as an individual as well and a member of a a neighborhood. Um I wrote a letter for you all and I hope you had a chance to see it. I'd like to add a couple of comments. One is that I didn't emphasize this in my letter, but there's no buffer in Reno similar to the buffers that exist in Sparks in the county between uh signage and residences for purposes of this zone for public schools. And I think that's important to realize that people who live across the street from schools or next door to schools will have this sign in their face uh a lot. And that dictates that we take concern for those people who are in residences in neighborhoods for that fact that they're going to be looking at an electronic sign. No matter what happens tonight, we're just talking about the regulations. They're going to have signs that are electronic in their neighborhood. So, we have to mitigate as much as possible to to help our residences have the same benefits they would have if there was a buffer. Um, the other thing is that u I drive by Jesse Beck school very often in the morning at 15 m hour just like all of you. You go by elementary schools or other schools and you drive 15 miles an hour. Why? Because there's little kids around. We don't want signs. I'm going to call it flashing, but every eight seconds there's a a message. And it just happened for a second. This is another one. When I started talking, it said every 8 seconds there's going to be a message on an electronic sign, not as big as this, but an electronic sign flashing messages as people drive by a school. It's it's really important in my view and scenic Nevada's view to look at Scenic Nevada's suggestions because we're not against the schools having the electronic signs, but please regulate them. I think all the residents as much as you can restrict them to protect the residences and school children who are there from what will happen if these signs um become too prevalent and and they they change every 8 seconds. That's what we're asking you to do, please. And I think all the people that live in the neighborhoods, you included, will thank us. Thank you, Lori Ray. Sorry. I was going to put something up, but I can't seem to locate it. Oh, I don't know, Michelle, if you can um make that kind of big so that people can read. Oh, yeah, you can read it. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, hi, my name is Lori Ray. I'm a director uh for Scenic Nevada and I'm here um um to tell you that we are not opposed to schools having digital signs. We are not. We just want decent regulations that also protect the residential neighborhoods as my husband said um like they do in Sparks and in the county. Schools are zoned public facility in the county in Sparks. and they have a regulation that says only uh parcels that are 10 acres are of in public facility zones are allowed to have a digital signs. So that means that Florence Strank Elementary School in Sparks which is on 4.82 acres can't have a digital sign and neither can Pleasant Valley on 5.6 acres in the county in Reno. Under these proposed regulations, both Jesse Beck and Hunter Lake on five acres can not only have one sign, they can have two digital signs because they have two street frontages which is allowed under these regulations. So none in the county and Sparks, you know, on under 10 acres, but two in the city of Reno. So Reno's proposing regulations um allowing 8-second flip times and without the protections that we just discussed in the county and Sparks. And so it's ironic that the 8-second flip time is being proposed for Reno because it's supposedly consistent with the county and Sparks. Um uh but it obviously is not consistent. I mean that's the only one that's consistent. All the others are inconsistent. So, we advocate for digital signs that emulate static signs. They don't flint. They aren't bright. And they operate during normal business hours. Um, so when you when we think about it, when you look at a a digital sign, it's hard in during the day, you can't hardly tell the difference between a digital sign and a a static sign until it flips. And that's the annoying part. And that's the part that catches people's attention when they drive by and causes safety issues. So, um, we wrote you a letter, um, on behalf of Scenic Nevada. That's part of it, and it shows that chart. Um, I hope you had a chance to read it. In it, we've got our proposed regulations. Um, they are 6 foot maximum, height 32 square feet, 15minute flip with an instant change, 6:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. operating hours unless there's an event or and never never on when schools are not in session holidays weekends summer breaks. um and 115 at brightness levels appropriate. Um we don't think you can make the findings on this part of the sign code. We also want to take a minute to thank staff for its diligence in trying to contact people and get the information out and also for um taking unlimited signage downtown out of the regulations. We really appreciate that. And we also appreciate the staff report that was given tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Kyle Chisum. All right. Good evening. Kyle Chisum. I'm here representing Wash County School District. Thank you for your time tonight. Um, I want to get this all in in 3 minutes. I got a lot here. So, if it seems like I'm speeding, that's cuz I am. Um, I just want to little background on this. As Lauren pointed out, we as the school district as a stakeholder has been involved throughout this entire process just like we would any normal development case or text amendment that the city sends out for review. Um, this one was no different. We submitted comments. Um, one of one of the things that we noticed right away was that digital signs are not allowed for schools at all in Reno. Um and that that is inconsistent with all of Wo County and the rest of the state uh including southern Clark County, all of southern Nevada, Winnamaka, Carson City, and everywhere else. Um so when we have um also some more context um we didn't just willy-nilly say, "Hey, we want to we want to we want digital signs." Our principles and administrators have been asking for the these signs for a long time and we've had to tell them no, you can't have them. And they say, why? Well, why does Fallon have them? Why does Carson City have them? Why does Winnamaka have them? Uh, we might be having a Zoom issue. Oh, everybody pause for a moment. Pause my time. You might get some, you know, extra out of this. Yeah, I think his clock is still ticking. Okay, we're going to Should we take a recess? Take a fiveinut recess. We're going to take a fivem minute recess. Kyle will restart the clock for you when we come back. Sounds good. It is. All right. Okay. We're back and we're going to um continue with public comment. Well, not to worry. By the time people walk up and All right, Commissioner Velto, please return to your chair. We've lost Commissioner Visera. Where is everyone? Get back to your chairs. All right, restart the show. All right. Um, Kyle, would you like to come back up and All right, thank you for that breather. Um Kyle Chisum with the Wash County School District again for the record. Um so let's see where did I leave off leave off. Um so point being this our school principles and administrators have asked us for these signs and we've had to tell them no. Um so we're trying to make something that works for everybody. Um so through this process we've met with the city. We've looked at all the regulations through other jurisdictions throughout the state that seem to work just fine and we and we've talked to Scenic Nevada on multiple occasions. Um, one of the one of the big issues with digital signs seems to be brightness and this what is in the proposed code restricts signs at night for schools to 150 nets. And to put that in perspective, that is equivalent of a dark skies lighting for the most rural area. So it is extremely dim. Um it's much dimmer than Sparks and Reno and everywhere else allows. So point being much of the impact is mitigated with that one standard alone. So um what we and and many of the other things Scenic asked for we conceded to as well. We did not come up with 150 nets to be clear. That was a scene recommendation. We conceded to that. We said, "Okay, we understand. We don't want to negatively impact our neighbors. The school administrators definitely don't want to do that. They want to be good neighbors. We all want to be good neighbors." So, um that being said, um some of the other things were just they just went too far to be honest and it would really limit our ability to operate these signs and frankly make them ineffective and cost prohibitive. Um they are very expensive and so we are happy with the code. We've worked very hard through this with city staff and scenic and um other stakeholders. Even talked to Clark County about how they do them and we feel very comfortable with this. We feel like it's uh very uh uh very restrictive. So, um which I think is good for the neighbors. Um and so anyway, that is it. Um, I do have 40 seconds. So, I just want wanted to show you a few pictures since I have time. Michelle, do you have a overhead by chance? Thank you. So, Fernley digital. Well, it's not super clear. Digital sign residence. Lowry High Winnamaka digital sign residence. Elco digital sign residence. Another one in Elco, digital sign residents, very rural areas. Another one in Elco, Carson City, our neighbor to the south, digital sign residents. Another one in Carson or excuse me, two more in Carson. And the other two are in Southern Nevada. You don't probably leave them there for a second. Oh. Oh, or you can just give me the copies when you're done. Thank you everybody. Thank you. All right, that concludes um the public comment cards that I've received. Does anybody else in chambers wish to speak on this item? All right, if you'd like to come to the podium, good evening, commissioners. For the record, Karen Mson. I'm the area general manager for Yesco. Um, and I first and foremost have to say thank you so much to staff because they really have really done an amazing job diving in and trying to clear up some of the complexities that were caused. I was here back in 2015, 16,1 17 when code was being changed and the un the unexpected consequences that some of the changes that were made. Um, they've done just a fantastic job of trying to clear those up. It it helps with clarity because as a sign company, we have we have customers that come to us and when there's some inconsistencies within the code, it causes concern or it could be problematic as well. We've had situations where there have been temporary planners um plan reviewers that read something in one context and don't read it in the other and then uh other staff has to be involved. And so it could be a timeconsuming um activity that that with this clarity and this clearing of of the code. Uh we absolutely appreciate the the time doing that. Um as far as the the digital signs for schools, like Kyle said, we get calls often from princip principles, from boosters, from administrators wanting digital signs because they do see it in other communities. And um you know, we we have digital signs. We've used them in many many instances. and staff has done a really great job working alongside of the International Sign Association and some other organizations looking to see that they are restrictive enough that the schools can be good neighbors um and and really allow for the schools to use the signs in the way that they need to. Um I know Lori in the past has said, you know, at 10 p.m. who drives by a school at 10 p.m.? I'm sorry. My grandchildren are out playing sports and getting home at 10:00 at night, so I know their parents are driving by schools. And so to be able to have that messaging available, I think is really important. It also becomes a fundraising opportunity for a school where they may be able to put up a message that's congratulating a student for student of the month or a birthday. Opportunities for the schools to use some of the funding to help source um source source these very expensive signs. Um the 8 seconds is fair. AX seconds is the same thing that is held without with all digital signs throughout the rest of the community, even in the gaming districts. So when when it's said that it's it's flipping, they're not flipping. They're an automatic change. They don't slowly change over. Code requires that they immediately change and that is being it is being done. Um the language that staff has come together with with Scenic Nevada with the school district um really does help regulate it and mitigate to where there is no issues and I really feel that that it again staff has done a great job and I think um tonight when you approve it there will be a lot of very happy families in the community. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Do we have anybody else wishing to speak under public comment on the signs or anyone online? No, there is nobody on Zoom for this. All right, we'll close public comment and go to commissioner disclosures. Starting on my left, do we Oh, do we disclose on a staff? We probably should. Maybe if we work for a sign company. I So probably Yeah, why not? Commissioner Rair, for the record, uh read and reviewed material. um been part of the prior discussions from October. Um do not work for a signed company. Um that is it. Commissioner Delvier, I have read the information and uh that is it. Commissioner Villain, I read some of the emails that came through. I was at the last presentation on the sign ordinance and uh read the materials. That's all. Commissioner Rormmyer read many emails and I think I was part of the very first workshop three years ago, four years ago. Uh, Commissioner Williams read the material, uh, read all the emails, spoke with a representative from Scenic, Nevada, and spoke with a current member of the Washo County School Board. Commissioner Jockman uh, spoke with uh, folks uh, in OP Sier Scenic, Nevada, and Wo County School District. Um, Commissioner Belto, I uh, sorry, uh, Commissioner Belto, I've received and reviewed correspondence, reviewed the materials. I spoke with a representative of the WO Education Association about the signed ordinance. I also represent the WOO school principles association. Um, I have not had any communications with them about this proposed ordinance. Uh, I don't believe that my representation of them would um creates a uh would affect my judgment materially and I don't believe any of my commitments in a private capacity are related to any representations that they more may support this signage. Right. Thank you. So, we will go to questions from the commissioners for staff. Hello. Um, thank you obviously for all the work you've done. This has been ongoing and I know kind of controversial. Um, regarding the private public schools, so what's the applicability between the signs? Is it only for public schools? Is it only for private? Does it matter? Does it matter where they're located? Sure. So, for the record again, Lauren Knox, um, schools are defined basically in our in our code and public and private are within that same definition. So this would not just be for public schools. This is for both public and private schools defined by state law. So that's really for primary and secondary education. So public and private charter schools as well would be included within there. Okay. I have one more question. I have a lot of questions, but I'm going to only ask two to allow for everyone else because I'm sure everyone has questions. My second question is um I I heard one of the public commenters uh mention that in some of the other municipalities there are distances and maybe I I my interpretation of what was said is incorrect but there are distances between uh a school and maybe residential or school and mixed juice. Um, is that the case in is that the case in Wo County or I guess city of Reno is where this is applicable. Um, is does that matter? I mean, are there distance requirements? So, we do not have distance requirements being proposed within what we've put forward and part of that thought process is putting these kind of mitigation pieces in place would mitigate if there were residences directly next to it. The reality is most schools are probably going to be within a residential district. So there's always going to be that proximity piece because there's no minimum distance requirement. Correct. And um I think that was my interpretation of what was said. So other in in your understanding other counties potentially have distance requirements for schools but not in city of Reno. So I think what was discussed was distance requirements for a digital sign. like the footing of that sign to a nearby residence. There seems to be sometimes there's a distance requirement in there to have a digital or animated sign from residential, not the school itself. Not the school itself. No. Yeah. From that the the footing of that sign. Okay. Thank you. I have other words, but I'll let it I'll um yield. Thank you. Uh hello. Uh so I want to understand the the rationale for uh having signage at schools. What are some of the reasons why schools might utilize signs? Sure. So, my understanding from the school district's desires are really kind of an efficiency piece. So, a lot of times at schools, you'll see that they have it's like a message board and you have the letters that you pop in, right? And it says kind of whatever messaging they're trying to get across. Um, that can be labor intensive in terms of changing out that messaging. You can't really get all of the messaging on there. You can't get it out all the time. You're not able to get as much messaging. Um, so also it's kind of the new age thing, the the digital signage. It's people are are paying attention to it a bit more. Um, so the efficiency factor I think is a big part for the schools and that and and the things that they're trying to display are it's picture day, it's we have a PTA meeting today, we have, you know, just the school related sign messaging that they're trying to get out to the families. I have a quick followup on that. Um, so in when I've looked at some of the differences between static and flip signs and I understand what is being suggested by people that may not be in support of this text amendment, at least this portion of it uh have to do have more of a are not strictly static but different types of digital signs. My when I've looked into this, it seems like there's a benefit to having quicker turnaround for crisis response. Um, is that something the city evaluated or that you're aware of the district evaluating? So, I don't know if the district necessarily evaluated that specifically. I can't speak to that, but um with the discussions with the International Sign Association, they recommend um and we didn't put this into into there, but it is a standard thing a lot of times. It's something called iPaging system. So, you're able to integrate in if there's, you know, some sort of code red or an Amber Alert or something of that nature, they're able to integrate that into the system a lot quicker. Um, I don't think the school district is by any means opposed to doing that. It's probably something that they'd want to do. Right now, they don't have the ability to do any of this type of signage. So, they don't have kind of operational aspects figured out like that necessarily, but um they were not, from what I understand, opposed to including that emergency messaging when necessary. and and it is a piece, you know, when there is a code red, for example, at a school, that is something that they discuss, being able to be able to put that up right away so that everyone knows what's going on as soon as possible is a big piece for them. Thank you. Sure. Uh, Commissioner Jockan. So, uh, all the schools for the school district and also private schools exist in a number of different zones. Um, I'm curious how the code is read. If you've got PF, you know, they exist in public facility SF8, um, even in plan developments and so forth, we've got the code that's going to show in some of those not allowed or other things, but then we also have schools that will say obviously these various stipulations. So, how would one go about interpreting the code when both things could apply? Sure. So, basically what we tried to do in table 51 is talk about these youth specific regulations for schools. for example, and most of those regulations, so the sign size, the sign height, the maximum area, all of that, the number of signs, right, one percentage, all of that is defaulting to whatever that standard zoning is for the school. So, if a school is in a zone where it's allowed and say it's single family zone, there's going to be a bit more limited signage that's allowed compared to if that school were zoned commercially, they'd be able to have a bit um maybe taller of a sign or they'd be able to have more signage. So, it the use specific regulations if they're more specific, they would apply. If not, it defaults to that standard zoning district. So it's specifically the flashing and animation that's specific to the use and then everything else is subject to the zone. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Yes. So the the things in that last column that's all Yeah. Yep. Exactly. Thank you. I'll yield for now. Sure. Commissioner Ver for the record. I uh thanks Lauren for the great work. I think one of the things I heard as a point of friction is the um duration or the frequency at which the the signage is allowed to change the 8 seconds. Uh would you mind sharing what the basis or research was behind the that minimum threshold because I think in my review of material and talking with some of the the stakeholders at some point it was proposed to be 15 minutes then 8 seconds and so I I guess I would like to understand how 8 seconds was settled on. Sure. um you've unlocked the bonus slide. I'm just going to put this up here. There's a lot of text there, but it does it does help kind of walk through some of this and and a lot of this is in the staff report. Um but in terms of your specific comment and that 8-second piece. So that's that bottom line there, content display in terms of intent, the 8-second time frame, we were really attempting to be consistent with our neighboring jurisdictions and that's really for the school district. So they have to come up with an operation plan for these items and they want to be able to have consistent standards as much as possible for all of their administrators just to be clear on what they can and can't have. So that's where that 8-second time frame came into play. May I follow up there really quick? I I get maybe that's where it came from, but I don't think it answers the question like why 8 seconds like what what what's driving that specific number? So that is based on um what we kind of also already have in code but it is just a standard I believe that exists for some reason. I cannot tell you the exact specifics on why 8 seconds and why every jurisdiction has 8 seconds but I believe it has to do with the messaging um flip times and other jurisdictions. So in southern Nevada theres is a 3se secondond or there's no requirement at all. So why everyone in um Wo County chose 8 seconds I don't have that specific background. Okay. No, I I appreciate the the candid response there. I think maybe between here and if it moves forward to city council, my suggestion would be to as as as a body and as a staff kind of as a city of Reno, make sure that we can answer that question because um it probably won't be the first time it's asked when we're re when we're reviewing this 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and we want to all understand like the the motivation behind these decisions. So, yeah. And I do believe it has to do with when you're driving the amount of messaging that you can take in in kind of how much you're able to take in. But absolutely, I would. Right. And I think I'll just add one more thing there cuz I'm trying to picture about like my experience going through a school zone and if I'm driving or riding my bike or something through a school zone and we're going at 50 miles per hour or less, will I fly through it at a certain rate and see three messages or four messages? And is that akin to texting and driving for instance? Right. So something worth exploring. Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Williams. Hi. Was there any formal or informal discussions um in relates to that in relation to that public safety aspect? Uh my brief um research this afternoon found three vehicle versus pedestrian child incidents in school zones just this year. Um, to me it's slightly concerning that we're talking about adding more distractions to an already very chaotic area. So, I just wonder, I know it wasn't in the staff report, but did that come up at all and were there? Yeah, that was definitely a concern expressed and kind of the way we thought about that as well is if you already have those other static boards that they're able to have, there's already a level of distra distraction that's going to exist. Um, one of the reasons why the 8-second time piece also kind of comes into play is if you're able if they're able to have say three messages be um, deciphered while driving instead of trying to cram all of that information into one one sign showing because they only get to change every hour or every 15 minutes or whatever, maybe it could possibly be less distracting. Um, but yes, that is certainly a concern. It's the public safety side, but there already are kind of some of these signage pieces up um where there's a consumer to the signage saying there's a PTA meeting or something of that nature. But yes, it was. I have a question. It's actually probably directed at Wo County School District, but they're not the applicant in this case. Um it's maybe rhetorical in this and then I would say it's I find it such a contradiction and maybe others do as well that the school district is you know testing removing phones and screens from all activities of students because it is a distraction and it is an attention um deficit. And yet here they are requesting signs that are electronic and flashing and switching. And uh I would just like someone to clarify why we can have both of those things in front of us. Sure. I don't have an exact answer to that piece specifically. Um I don't know if if school district staff does, but that was not part of any of the conversations that I've had. Thank you. Uh this Commissioner Delvr. I had a couple of questions. There's one sort of to follow up or piggyback on what Commissioner Williams was saying. Um, and that is sort of the safety. Is there any restrictions? I haven't seen anything in here where the sign would be at least a certain distance from like one of the crosswalks or anything like that. So, that was not contemplated. No, that's that's not contemplated in what we've put forward, but that is an interesting safety aspect. Yeah, because I I mean I just know I like right in front of a an elementary school and the kids are always like dashing out and if I was looking at a sign then that could be a problem. Um the other question I had is uh how how are we helping schools understand sunrise and sunset like what like that seems a little ambiguous if you will. Sure. So, it'd be generally based on because we have this existing already in code for animated signage. Um, but it is based on I believe it's uh NOLA has specific times each day and that's what we would base it on. Got it. Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. So, um it's not so much of a qu Well, it is sort of a question. Um, so with regard to public schools and private schools, because we have so many charter schools popping up now, um, there may be an instance, and maybe I'm wrong. You can correct me if I'm wrong. There may be an instance where there is a charter school directly across the street, which actually that happened to be my case. I had I was in a high school and I had a school directly across from me, private school, public school. Um, and they were in the same neighborhood surrounded by residential. What happens in an instance like that? Do they each get the I mean, so we have I guess potentially two to four signs in one neighborhood. Yeah. So the the way that the code is written right now, it would allow for each of those schools to have their signage as long as they're following what's proposed. So in an instance like that, that would potentially be multiple signs on that street. Okay. And so I guess my concern is because when we oftent times signs are associated with commercial um and so schools are unique in the sense that they tend to be in residential neighborhoods um more than you know you know we may have the occasional restaurant, coffee shop, things like that but oftent times it's schools that are going to be all over the place. So um so with regard to that I think some of the regulations my recommendation is I do like the idea that you know we do have some tougher regulations with respect to the signs changing um because of the applicability of two schools in one neighborhood schools in neighborhoods things like that so that's my I do kind of I think there should be um a larger gap between the sign changing as se the scenic Nevada indicator at least some of the commenters today. They don't appear to oppose the signage. It's more of a stringent more stringent recommendations. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. And again, we had multiple meetings trying to get to a place because as they had stated, they don't necessarily completely not want the signage. Um, and there are ways to to mitigate some of the issues that they have. It's just uh the school district's needs and those public comments don't line up to the exact same thing that we could have brought forward to you. So, that's that deliberative process. So, I'll share that. Thank you. Ro, would you mind treating Kyle as the applicant and having him come back up for questions even though he's not or I don't know if we're allowed to do that actually. I public comment we're not usually allowed to speak to the chair. Mike. Okay. If it's my discretion, sure, please. Kyle Chisum. Kyle, could you join us? Thanks, Chair. Sure. Appreciate it. Okay. Well, I feel like the principal right now. Yes. Kyle Chisum, W County School District. Hello. Hey, Kyle. Um, I really don't like this. Um, and just on the public safety aspect, but I'm trying to come to a place um because I did have conversations with Scenic Nevada, and that was my question to them was why didn't you guys just outright, you know, say no to this? And and and they talked a lot about coming to an understanding that this is necessary and and the schools really want it. And so, I'm trying to find that same spot. Um the couple things I'm battling with right now are the need to go to 10:00 um and the need to have these um on when school is not in session. Can can you elaborate just a little bit on maybe why the school is kind of has a the district has a hard line on on those two particular things? Why why on out of um school and why so late? Yeah, I think I think our main thinking on the hours piece is because the main impact being the brightness and the visibility of the sign is limited so much. Um, and so when you think of it in terms of hours, you know, typically hours are reduced for nighttime impacts, right? And what's the nighttime impact? Brightness. So, and because that is limited so greatly, we didn't feel that a need to limit the signs further and and also I got to say to give our principles a little discretion to operate them how they see they fit and to communicate with their neighborhood and community. Right? if they have if we have a high school football game and it goes till 10:00 then perhaps you know that they might want to have some messages out there and to answer um I think it was the offse sorry um so what was the second part of the question why why dur why on in operation during uh when school's out of session summer and vacation I think that part is probably just an operational nightmare Okay. More than anything, I mean, to try and, you know, that, as you guys know, being from this community, you know, with the snow days and the smoke days and everything else, the the likelihood that they'll be turned off when they're not there if they don't need them or the principal doesn't feel that they need them is, I think, pretty great. But again, there's a discretion part of this. And, you know, I will say, you know, we're still learning about these. We don't have digital signs right now. So, I think that, you know, we're still learning about this. We're going to have some internal policies and guidance to our administrators and um you know, these things aren't going to be popping up overnight like this. We we don't have this built in our capital program right now and this is not something that we're just going to be go, hey, every school's getting a digital sign tomorrow. No, that that's not the way it's going to happen. So, um, uh, so we're we're still learning and, um, I think there's been some other good questions raised. I, um, might have some answers to the some of those, but, I think, uh, that's all I got for you. Thanks, Commissioner Ber for the record. Um, Kyle, I have one for you. Um, speaking of like lessons learned and you guys trying to figure this out, I believe you had mentioned that uh, the rest of Nevada does this, Carson City, Mid, and so forth. Have you guys had an opportunity to kind of consult with them about what has worked, what hasn't worked, you know, those constraints, so you kind of lessen the the learning curve a little bit and take that feedback um into some of these uncertainties that you're speaking to Commissioner um Williams about. Yeah, I think probably the ones I've talked to the most has been Clark County School District because we have a pretty good relationship. Um and they're similar size. Okay. big a bit bigger but um you know fairly comparable um so and operate in a kind of similar environment right um so in talking with them they're similar to us and why we're asking for this is that consistency piece they're dealing with I think seven jurisdictions down south what the clar county school district so as you can imagine the inconsistencies these really matter. It makes it difficult operational operationally. Why can one school have a digital sign and and and the other jurisdiction right next door cannot? Right? So trying to um get that consistency. Um and I think that what I've seen is the 8second flip times have caused no issues according to Clark County School District and the brightness levels are much higher. um as far as the distance separation and different little other things like that, you know, um you know, we can talk about that, but um ultimately with the kind of cart blanch brightness limitation, it it for us, we felt like that was a good solution to eliminating a lot of the issue here. So, that's kind of I guess where we stand on that. Okay, I appreciate that. And maybe similar to the feedback I shared with uh Miss Knox is that uh maybe between now and the next iteration um maybe uh kindly ask that you all try speaking with um another municipality, you know, uh like Carson or or Elco or the like cuz Reno is very unique, right? We're the biggest little city. We have a little bit of urban life. We still have a little bit of a ruralness. So getting some different comparables, getting some uh feedback as far as what's worked, what hasn't, right, might be helpful. Uh more information is always nice. And kind of in that vein, I'll just switch to a statement uh for Miss Knox and crew that I really do appreciate you all taking the feedback that we we asked last time or the request of going to the downtown businesses, seeing what they even wanted because they weren't we weren't even sure if they were aware. Uh so I do appreciate that. And I guess my ask now is um if you wouldn't mind clarifying what the next step would be from here so this body and the general public know exactly uh what to expect and if there's still room to shape or influence the final ordinance uh so people can you know uh set their expectations accordingly. Sure. So this is kind of planning commission's recommendation to council. So the next step is to go to council for the introduction of the ordinance that is currently scheduled to take place on May 21st and then following that um there'll be a second reading and that's general with any any ordinance we do on June 4th. So those are kind of the intended next steps at this point. So between now and then that that council hearing that's also a public hearing. Great. Thanks Lauren. And just for clarity is there still room between now and those readings to shape the final ordinance based on feedback or Sure. So, planning commission's feedback tonight will be what I then bring to city council at that meeting. So, that that's where that that piece can come in. Sure. And then maybe prior to the end of this conversation, if you wouldn't mind um because I seen you taking diligent notes, just kind of summarizing what that feedback would be, you know, prior to us closing this item, if you wouldn't mind. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, for the record. So, um, actually, this would maybe be for the school district. Would it be possible to put up the examples that you had from the other schools across the state? I noticed with um some of those Yeah. Just if you could. Sorry. Kyle Chisum, W County School District. Are you referring to the pictures, the photos? Yeah. Maybe. or if you could just maybe list a few. I wanted to look a few of them up. Start with Carson, I guess. So, the one that I noticed that you put up was Lowry from Winnamaka. Um I I'm curious if if some of those schools that have brighter signs are on um busier roads, higher higher functional roads in those in those neighborhoods. I think that that certainly looks true for Carson. Um can't quite see from the one at Fremont, but um I think some of the concerns from some of the other commissioners are um getting at okay, we have schools everywhere. They occur in different environments and perhaps we're concerned in some locations more than in others. And so obviously taking a look at the zoning code when we have a zone in place um that doesn't always get at what people's concerns might be in that location. Um obviously these signs are going to be on frontage for roads. So, um, you know, I'm I'm obviously coming in at a late stage in how all this code has been developed, but, um, I think as this moves forward, it and and this is more directed at staff and at the school district, but it might be an opportunity to take a look at different road types so that on some of those busier and already brighter streets, uh, I I don't see the need for the code to be as restrictive with regard to signage on some of those busier streets. and conversely where the concerns are, I would I would suspect are primarily located on those lower functional class roads. Um, not going to make a specific recommendation here for for staff, but just to maybe take another look at take a look at that as it moves forward so that you can um, you know, perhaps have brighter signs in brighter locations and taking a look at the roadways that are associated with that. I don't think I'm going to take a stab at that. That So, um, if Lauren wants to address that, she may, but did you have any questions for me? Yeah. No, if if I guess if staff wants to come up and share any thoughts on that. Um, I'm not trying to create a ton of new work. I just, you know, I I' I've heard that the school district is concerned about the signs being too dim in certain locations and I can understand and sympathize with some of the locations but not all of them. Sure. So, one of the issues that we actually address in the overall code changes um in our table right now, we do have some standards as code exists now that exist for if you're along an arterial or if you're along a roadway that is 35 m an hour or greater, you get bigger signage. We've had some pretty big issues trying to administer that. Um, defining an arterial is defined multiple different ways from multiple different entities and there is not a clear definition. So, we were trying to back away from kind of that functional roadway classification level of review. Um, so we've had some difficulty in there. Um the the thought with what we've put into code was that generally the sign size, the number of signs, all of those pieces would revert to the zoning district, which I know kind of doesn't get exactly what you're you're looking at, but um if say a school was in a commercial zone, a lot of times there's going to be commercial surrounding it and probably less residential versus if a school is zoned residential, you're probably within a neighborhood. So, we tried to kind of bring that leveling into play with with that in mind, but it does not get exactly what you're what you're getting at. So I um aside from whether or not there should be signs, how often they should be flipping, I'm very concerned with the limitation on 15 minutes in the event that there is an emergency. I think these signs could be utilized, for instance, if there was like an active shooter situation. Um, and I would not want there to be a restriction or prohibition on the use of a sign that prevented it from flipping for 15 minutes after they received notice of an emergency. So, I don't know, you know, where the commission's going to go on this proposal, but I'd be very I'd want there to be at least some mechanism for an administrator to be able to utilize a sign in the case of emergency to alert people regardless of whatever the the flip restriction is. Commissioner Ber, for the record, I I concur. I mean, there should always be an exception to to any regulation or rule or anything of that sort. So, I think it's just common sense, right? especially in a emergency incident like uh Commissioner Velto mentioned um keeping the feedback loop or the information uh loop tight is is important. So I agree I generally agree with the the idea there but I can't imagine a school administrator taking time to change the sign in a situation like that. Nor can I imagine the panic and fear that the neighborhood would feel if such a sign were in place. I I mean I don't know what the what it would look like, but I I got to imagine that this this there's a system that automates kind of alerts and says stay away from campus. There'd be some way to communicate with people that are like an Amber alert. Correct. Something. Yeah. Like I mean, we do it by phones. I'm sure we do it by signs. Correct. I I mean, how it's done, you know, that that's a tactical thing, but I agree with the general sentiment that there should be an exception to every rule fundamentally. Yeah. May I? Yes. Uh couple more uh questions about the changes and then potentially um recommendations depending on the response. So for the signage um what I know we're supposed to stay away from content, but is there going to be like offsite like can they advertise for say someone spons say they have a booster um can they sp so I you know Pizza Hut sponsors my our football team. Can does that mean we're we're advertising Pizza Hut now? No. So we um we are able to look at kind of off-remise versus on-remise signage. Off-Rise signage would not be allowed. On-remise signage would be all that's allowed and on premise would be what that school function is. So what does that mean for sponsors? So does that how do you contain that? Like if we if is it considered on-site if it's a sponsor? No. So if Pizza Hut is not on the school site, then that would not. Yeah, that that's how you determine between off- premise and on premise. It's it's a difficult balance, but yeah. Got it. And then um so then that's easy. I don't have to worry about that. And then um as far as the to the county's uh their comments earlier or their um statements earlier, they compared themselves to counties like Clark, which I think is an apples to oranges comparison. So I don't know that it's my recommendation that that really that we really should be looking to counties like Clark because they are it is so different. Um, and in Clark, they have to compete with the attorney billboards. So, I'm kidding. I'm an attorney, so that's not a knock at them. But, um, but I do think we I don't know that we need to be comparing ourselves to, uh, such a different, uh, county. Um, and yeah, I think my biggest concern, my recommendations just are what I said earlier. Um, just having the schools in the so, you know, we can have two schools in the same area and that's going to be a problem for me. Um, so I think we do want to some of the recommendations that Scenic Nevada had I agree with regarding the stagnation. I don't think it should be an 8m minute flip. So that's what I'm going to recommend. Thank you. I'd like to follow up to that. Are there not off- premise signs then already at these schools? You can go by many of the fences and see um dentists, real estate agents, and all sorts of other boosters advertised. So I think what you're referencing are those temporary banners generally um near fields or something of that nature. Um so technically if if they are uh exuding out to the right ofway that would not be an allowed sign. So that would be a code enforcement kind of piece in there. That kind of temporary this is a sponsored by so and so for their athletics divisions. Those are supposed to face inwards towards the um say if you're at a football field, inwards towards the field, not outwards. Did we hear that? Okay. Thank you. I'll just add something to my previous comments. I think to make it clear, um I I'm I'm fine with this moving forward as it is. the um you know, it's just a thought for consideration for staff, not a not an imperative. If there's some way that staff can get at identifying those different environments with regard to all of the different schools, they're in different zones. It's great to hear that you already are looking at that with the different zones. um you know that that might help getting at some of the school district's interests in having more ability to operate their signs in environments that are already well illuminated by other items and then conversely in the areas that are local in nature residential streets. Thank you. Um I again I I you know I don't really have too much more to add but um I at one point you mentioned that it's one sign per frontage and so might that impact sort of what um Commissioner Villain Noeo was getting at with if there's two schools and one street or is that specific to each school? That would be specific to each school. So each school when they're when they're placed on the street, they're going to have a frontage. If on they're on a corner lot, they're going to have two frontages. So they'd be able in in the way it's written now potentially to have say two signs. That would be different than if a school's next door cuz they they have one frontage too. So their frontage would be allowed to have a sign. Got it. Okay. And then again, just my my recommendation is to consider um not making sure that they're not near the crosswalks where the kids are popping up. Yeah, I think there's um I have a question about how to move forward with a recommendation in this case. I think there are probably varying opinions about signs particularly with the school um that would be separate from all other changes to this ordinance. Would Mike Carl is there is there a way to separate those for a vote or discussing I I'm trying to get the question answered about a vote in this case. Well, as far as the vote goes, what you're doing is making recommendations on the different parts of the code. So, one part of course is the school signs and then we have other um changes to the code. So, what you're doing is making a recommendation and then your motion is based upon compliance, you want to move this text amendment to the city council with your recommendations on those different issues. Does that make sense? And do we need to come to consensus on those? No, I I I believe that um Lauren will take all of those recommendations to council for their consideration. So, okay. And this commissioner, Mr. And I think going back to what I mentioned earlier, I think that's why I um asked Miss Knox if at the end maybe she wouldn't mind enumerating what that feedback is just to make sure that it was properly captured. Um if that's still okay. Yep. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Would you like me to to discuss what what I've heard and anyone can add in? I'm not sure we've done our discussion yet. And hopefully that will make it easier. Sure. Are we ready? Are we in questions? Questions discussion. Happy to get started. Uh I I hear what I I'm generally supportive over of the the text amendment including the way that uh the school signage has been framed. I think there's a discussion about attention and people being distracted when they're driving. Um, in or I would assume that we would see higher instances of distracted driving uh either fatalities or accidents in other communities that have this type of signage. And if that were a concern, I would I would want to see data about whether how many school zone accidents there are in those communities that have signage. I don't necessarily know if I've seen that data. Um, and because of that, I I kind of think that the attention grabbing is kind of the point. Um, there's like an 8-second rule, uh, in communication studies, which is generally you kind of are able to observe something and acknowledge it within 8 seconds. So, it's intuitive to me that that would be the amount of time that these signs would uh would be would be up before transitioning. I think it's important to keep parents informed. And I think that the there's been some concessions made about the illuminosity um and other things that seems like there's been a lot of pragmatic solutions that have taken into account some of the people's uh concerns. Um beyond that, I I think it's really important that the administrators have some discretion to get around this 15-minute rule in the event city council agrees that we need to push it back uh just in the event they need to communicate more rapidly with the community. So those are I think my my concerns. concerns. I can generally support it as it is, but um that's that's my perspective. Okay. Do we want to just go down the row or jump around? Uh I mimic um a lot of what you said, Commissioner Belto. Um I if it would have been great if we could have got the data and I'm I'm sure there's some exist in some cases. Um you know, the thing about distracted driving is that 99% of it is not reported. Um and um when asked, they generally don't tell the truth. And so um the stats that you see about distracted driving are very skewed. Um and so you know our in the Northwest the two that I'm very familiar with because my children go there are are so dense and residential. I mean it is it is hard to sometimes get out of the parking lot. And so when my concerns come to exiting a school with the sign flashing and just somebody taking that extra moment to be like, "Oh, the dances tonight." that that alone it causes me some kind of concern. So overall um you guys have done an amazing um amount of work and I know it's been appreciated in the community about this sign ordinance. So I think that's great. Um I would just I would want to express my concern and maybe some deeper thought on the council level about um how when and where um these exist in this school. Um it's obvious we're the outlier in in our area for having these which I find odd. Um, and um, I think there's a path to allowing them. Um, I just think that maybe those above us might take a greater look at the the the signage around schools. Okay. I think I'll build a little bit on yours, maybe take it farther. I've been at this a while and I appreciate the work that the city of Reno has put into a sign ordinance. I don't think there's a single ordinance that's harder to write and um, that's something. And I also appreciate scenic Nevada. I think one of the last kind of nice character and community neighborhood feels is the old manual signs. I can support everything in the sign code change except the school illuminated signs. I find that we're doing everything I we can to keep screens out of schools. Why do we need to have them? Uh, I also find schools a little hypocritical in their non-conforming sign usage because they are advertising on chainlink fences everywhere I drive around. Um, and so I really will probably be the only one who would vote against the sign ordinance purely on the fact that I cannot support an illuminated school sign. Commissioner Villanoeva. Um similar to what was said um by um Commissioner Roire except to I I can support the school signs um with the proper regulations in place because we do need to be considerate of the neighborhoods. These not only are we dealing with public schools, there are public schools popping up everywhere. The charter schools are all over the place and they're only becoming more and more prevalent and they're going to be all over the community. And if they each are allowed a sign, like I said, I I went to Desert Pines. There was literally I was there was three schools, one right across the street, a parking uh private school, our school, and then another school all within a block. And so imagine if we all had signs and then surrounded by housing. Um I just think we need to be cognizant of that and and the reality. It may not be the case today in Reno, but there may be schools in the future um that pop up. And I think it would be appropriate to just factor in that reality. And so if we just consider some of the recommendations that Scenic Nevada suggested, I think we can come to a resolution. I don't know that the schools really need to have the 8-second flip. It I mean, they're not this is not a mark, they're not marketing. They're here to get, you know, get information out. Um so I don't see that being too problematic. Um, that's my position. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Delvier, I've kind of expressed some of the concerns and issues that that I have. Um, I I live near an elementary school and it can take me 20 minutes to get out and I don't have kids there, but um, and I believe that if they did put a sign up, I would probably see it from my house. Um, but I also recognize that some of the messaging that they're putting out there is important and significant to uh to the parents. Um, I know kids are really bad about bringing messages back to their their parents about what's going on. Um, so again, it's sort of what everybody else is saying. Yeah, I have I have safety concerns. Um I um I I think that you know again as as city council looks at this there there might be some some ways to have some stronger regulations um and in place that would help sort of mitigate some of the questions and concerns that people have here. Sure. Commissioner Bisera. Um I think by and large uh I I support the latest iteration since the last goound particularly for the non-school portion right the the efforts you taken uh Lauren and your team to ensure that you got feedback from uh businesses in the downtown corridor and other areas and made those uh improvements taking public feedback. Uh, I do share concerns around the digital signage for schools and it's not because it's not that y'all didn't do due diligence. I think goes back to maybe the fundamental question I asked, why? And if we cannot clear clearly answer why, um, preferably with some safety and science research behind it to back it, then it it gives me pause, right? because I'm thinking of asking myself the question, how can I help my future self or anyone else understand why we made this decision, right? And so the the the best way we can do that is really clearly define that why now. Uh even if we're in disagreements with other parties, uh at least they'll hopefully better understand our motivation or reasoning behind it. So uh that would be my recommendation is to be able to answer whether it's 8 seconds, 15 minutes, you know, 11 hours or whatever. uh we we understand why and also offers some exceptions to those um to those rules with some level of specificity as well where it balances out giving local administration or leaders you know some discretion but also not too willy-nilly where you know there has to be some some specific reasons as to why they're they're initiating an exception. Uh Commissioner Jockman I guess we're all supposed to say something about this. One of the toughing things about toughest things about being on planning commission is that um there are a lot of issues that you have to take a stance on and some of them you don't have as much passion about as as others. So, um, a lot of the commissioners raised concerns about things that pertain to traffic safety and, um, it's it's, uh, it's going to be difficult for staff to address some of these because there are actually there there isn't a ton of research on what a school sign does for safety in these various areas. So, um, I I hear what you're um, getting at, Commissioner Bisera. It's going to be a tough ask for staff to use some of that uh base some of those decisions on research that is is out there because it it isn't out there. And so, you know, my comments that I made previously, I recognize you're well along the way towards um getting to a final product. So, please just take all my comments for consideration, but um you know, that's that's ultimately up to staff. I'm okay with that. Thank you. Sorry, Commissioner WR. Can I just add um regarding the the other component to this? Uh again, I appreciate all that you guys have done to take into consideration um and removing some of the um the uh obstacles that were there previously. So, because I know that this is it's not just about the school signs tonight. So, I appreciate what you guys have done there as well. Do you want to try to reiterate what we all think? Sure. Will. All right. So, I think what I heard is overall aside putting the school signs aside, it seems like there's agreement that the rest of the ordinance seems good. In terms of the school signs specifically, I heard there was concerns over attention, distraction, and public safety. Um, so a little bit more information is wanted to bring that before council as they make a decision to see if there is any additional information we can pull in there. Um, I heard that there's some, and this is where I think there's some disagreement among you all in terms of this 8-second flip time, um, and if if that should be longer or should stay in the way it is. Um, I also heard that there's concerns just having these digital signs in general, um, when we're trying to pull the digital piece out of out of schools. I have, let's see, Um, also concerns over some of the locationational aspects and the number of signs potentially that might end up in a certain area. And I think that covers most of it. I think the why piece is is worked into that public safety attention concerns. Um, I think that that's what I heard. Okay. Can I How do we vote? Okay. Can I add one? Just the um the necessity of um the time limit at 10 10 p.m. and off school um out of school times, summer breaks, spring breaks, et I agree with that one. Thank you for including that. Yeah, same commissioner sir. Okay. And then also um the what did you guys call it? The like if there's an emergency Oh, exceptions. Exceptions. Thank you. And then Just kidding. So is the motion then to send the recommend second send this all of these recommendations to the city council. Correct. Okay. I happy to make a motion. Sorry, one second. Uh in the matter of scratch that. Do we just It's a tough one. Oh, there you go. Uh, based upon compliance to the applicable findings, I move to recommend that city council approve the text amendment uh by ordinance with the recommendations. With the recommendations, uh, Commissioner Williams, I'll second. All right. All in favor? I I hearing none opposed. Good luck on the next phase. Okay, now we'll be going to item 5.2, um, the 1249 Humbult parking variance, and we'll begin with a presentation from staff. Good evening, commissioners. Carter Williams, associate planner for the record. Before you this evening is a request for a variance um for specific parking standards within the Plumis neighborhood overlay. Um the specific request is to uh relax for this property the requirement that um parking may not be in front of the house in between the the house and the street. The specific property is on the northwest corner or or northwest of the corner of West Aoyo and Humbled Streets for area contrast. That's uh uh south of Plumis Park. This is the the home. This is an older photo, but it gives context to where the the proposed improvements would go. On the right hand side, they'd be applying a curb cut and then uh parking would be in front of the front face. From a zoning perspective, this is this property is located within the multif family residential 14 unit per acre zone, MF14, and is within the Plumis neighborhood residential core planning area overlay PL district. Um and that has that specific requirement. This zone um was created through a neighborhood planning process in the '9s. Um so that neighborhood plan is no longer active because it was fully implemented within the code as a overlay um with specific standards. Um as this we don't get variances often. So I wanted to go over the the specific findings in in detail um for a variance. So variance is a request that requires a extraord extraordinary and unique circumstance um that causes an an exceptional hardship um upon the property owner. It cannot uh impact the public uh health, welfare and safety um and it uh um has to be in consistent in intent with title 18 and the master plan. So when we refer to um the common example that we use for variances is um maybe you have a property with a rockout cropping and that rockout cropping with the strict application of the code um causes a hardship where they're not able to develop their property in a way that other properties are able to develop. Um but if every um subdiv or property within that subdivision also has an outcropping, you lose that extraordinary and unique piece. Um so there there's some nuances in and these findings that are somewhat difficult to meet and and that's why you don't see too many of these um applications with respect to the the this request. This is a through lot. So it has access from Humbled Street and and access and vehicular access from the alleyway. Uh the uh in the blue is existing parking spaces. So there is an existing um single parking space accessed off of the alley and there's um two available parking spaces directly abuing the property on the street. Uh the proposed parking um is demonstrated there with uh two more compact spaces um placed in the front yard. Um this would remove um one um available parking space on the street which is important for the and when when we're referring to the master plan findings. Um staff is recommending denial of this application and and to to kind of start going into those spaces when we start talking about the extraordinary or exceptional um circumstance. Uh there are many properties in this neighborhood that um do not have parking or have only parking access from the alley. Um so it's it's not a unique circumstance to this property. In fact, I think the property immediately to the north is in the exact same situation um as this property owner. Um we also find that there may not be a hardship because there is an area off of the alley where there is um an additional parking space can be provided. Um the traditional parallel parking space is 9 by 24 feet and that is that is accessible or available in that um between the back property line and the the rear the rear home. Um one of the comments that the applicant indicated was the the need for um vehicular charging for for electric vehicles. Um staff doesn't believe that there's anything that prevents the applicant from providing that u those utilities in the back. Um so again on the second piece the hardship staff was not able to meet that finding. Just to go back to the uh um the Plumis neighborhood plan. This was a plan that was adopted in 1995. It went through a pretty extensive and neighborhood engagement project process with um 16 meetings for the for the neighborhood. Um the prohibition on parking came from those meetings and it was uh officially adopted in the code um as a standard. So, uh, the the intent, um, from the neighborhood plan was to preserve the visual character of the neighborhood with, um, the prohibition of parking in the front yard. Um, this doesn't necessarily prevent access to the rear from the front or access to garages, but parking as as a stationary element within the front yard space was was discouraged through that plan and then and then eventually prohibited. From a master plan perspective, this is in the mixed neighborhood master plan land use designation staff finds that there's a number of policies that that does not that do not um support this request. Um specifically policy um the general neighborhood five um it discourages parking in front of buildings and neighborhoods in the central neighborhood section. Um policy 10 parking on site should be in character with the surrounding blocks and on street parking in central neighborhoods should be supported. um the character conversation um represented in central neighborhood policy 10 and the general neighborhood policy 20 to preserve specific character defining elements of a neighborhood that's really carried out through the intent of that plumeis neighborhood plan which we with stats would think would be undermined with this approval um and again the removal of a parking space on street um would be against that um that policy 10 for for general our central neighborhoods on the screen are the recommended uh or staff's analysis of the findings and we weren't able to meet um finding finding um finding uh a one two and four relating to an extra extraordinary exceptional situation you use to the property and undue particular hardship or that it's consistent with the intent and purpose of title 18 as it relates to the plumus neighborhood plan standards. Um we were also not able to meet um consistency with the master plan as discussed with the previous um master plan policies. on the screen is the recommended uh finding um and the um applicants representatives here um for our presentation. All right, we'll hear from the applicant. Sorry. Yeah, I have a presentation. Yeah. And then was I able to click through that or were you still doing remote? Cool. I just know there was complications earlier. So clarifying, just make sure you state your name for the record, please. Uh, so my name is Christian Jones. I am, uh, representing Carla Worning House, the property owner, and their application for the parking variance, 1249 Humbult Street. Uh, the goal of this variance, as stated, was to provide parking space uh, off Main Street of Humboldt uh, from the property. Um, So, as stated, uh the site is located in Plumis neighborhood in between Monroe Street and West Royo Street. Uh per the master plan for the Plumis neighborhood, all parking access should be coming off the alley, uh prohibiting any parking coming off the main street of Humboldt Street. Uh per comments from our neighborhood advisory board meeting, uh the site has a history of different land uses. Originally when the master plan was done, the land use was single family, hence pushing towards the parking design of maintaining use off the alley. Uh it is now multif family and then the and yet the policy still reflects that single family use for the zone and property. Uh zooming in further, you know, the the main residence was built in 1956. The rear unit was built in 1960. Uh the rear unit being 700 square feet and is rented out to be providing more housing in the downtown area. Uh I'm not sure what the ADU rules are. I know there was a lot of back and forth with that when this project first came around to the planning commission. Um so that I know that is kind of a question of concern there. Uh the site does, like I said, have a history of of multifamily use. Um, from my research looking into the property, uh, there was a request to make it a mult multiartcal declaration uh, in July of 2004, but that was denied and was left a single parcel. Um, and then just back to what I was saying, land use zoning has changed over time. It has gone from single family to multif family and mixed use. Um, and so just making sure that policy uh, stays updated with that. Uh, going into those site hardships. So mentioning it, it's not necessarily a sight specific, but I'm not sure what C like Carter mentioned that immediately north adjacent property is doing. Um, but I know that we property owner for this property is renting out the rear unit and so that eliminates the access to the parking that is provided off the alley when it is being used by the rear tenant. uh per city planning comments from the initial submitt for this back in March. Uh they were looking also asking if we could explore uh parking design within between the two units. Uh topographical challenges prevent that from happening. Um and then the final piece uh so per city parking code, you cannot leave your car stationary and parked for longer than 48 hours. The homeowner does not use their car on a regular daily basis. They use other modes of transportation. So when leaving the car parked on the street, they have to be aware of this time constraint to avoid possible ticketing or being towed for code enforcement for parking. So we changed the site plan for the city planning comments. They originally gave us four comments. Uh the fourth one being to suggest looking at moving the parking to the south side of the property compared to the north that was shown in the planning presentation. Um and then on top of that ensuring that the parking uh starts behind the front facade of the home uh which has now been done. Uh so the updated plan as shown in blue has the updated parking coming meeting city code 5t off the property line in the city right ofway off main street and then going down along the side of the property to accommodate the parking behind the front facade of the home. Uh there would be the appropriate driveway apron cut that would have to be made into the city sidewalk and curb. Um these are just details from public works design manual just showing we will be following these design standards provided by the city of Reno. Uh the specific note that I want to uh bring attention to is the third detail mentioning that when there are two driveway aprons within a 10 ft distance from each other the two the area between the two becomes depressed all the way through. So since our new proposed plan with the driveway entry on the south side is closer to and within that 10t mark to the southside neighbors driveway that entire driveway apron section would have to be depressed in order to maintain the ADA accessibility through that. Um so getting addressing those city planning comments. So, the first two, as Carter was mentioning, looking at using the space behind the between the rear unit and the alley access for parking for the main property owner. Uh, as it as seen, it is wide enough to accommodate parking, but that does still not address the concern of this unit's being rented out and the main property owner on the other side of the main unit cannot access this parking when is being used by the rear tenant. Um and then back to city comment three, it's exploring the feasibility of putting the parking between the two units. Uh as seen here, there are multiple grade changes starting from the rear of the main unit to where that rear side as seen there of the rear unit uh is there's great seat walls retaining. There's step ups to the uh door of the rear unit that uh provides too much grade change to allow for proper design of a driveway entry off the alley uh into the back of the property. Um and then is still the concern of when if that driveway went into place and the rear tenant parked in the provided parking spot is now blocking that access and the main unit is stuck in their backyard. This is addressing city comment number four where is considering the alternative of moving the driveway access to the south side of the property and making sure parking area is placed behind the front of the house. Uh so the plan has been updated to accommodate that alternative. Um, so in communication with Carter, the driveway entries need to be a minimum of five feet off the property line, which we will ensure. And then we will go down and cut back to the property line once we are inside the actual property and outside of the city right away to ensure that the parking can happen behind the front facade of the home. And then going to the findings analysis for a variance. um just con being consistent with the master plan and its intentions and providing uh public benefit and you know policies and things like that. Um when the addition of moving the parking entry to the south side of the property, it becomes more cohesive with properties that are already on the south side of the property going continue south down Humboldt. Uh as seen here, there are already other existing driveways on that section immediately budding south of the property. we would just be starting that transition of no driveways to driveway one property sooner in this neighborhood. Um, and this is kind of going back into the aesthetics of we would be properly designing this and ensuring that it meets the standards, codes, guidelines that the city of Reno has to ensure that the aesthetics are maintained throughout the neighborhood. Variance number finding number one, the extraordinary exceptional condition. This kind of rel this just relates back to the city planning comment of exploring the other alternative options to the parking besides the alley access. Um just reiterating that because of the grade changes, it's not possible to make an adequate entry off the alley without significant grade issues and other things like that. Um variance finding number two is that it's a practical difficulty and provides hardship onto the property owner. This is an image showing what the property owner is having to do now in order to charge their electric vehicle on the street. Uh it is creating a public safety hazard as there is a now tripping hazard in the city rightway that cannot be avoided as the property owner has to charge their car. Um this also leaves the car vulnerable to whoever may be walking by the power that is coming off the house. Uh lots of questions and concerns that come into you fun the functionality of charging the vehicle off the main street. Um and then it just circles back into the leaving the car parked for longer than 48 hours. Uh leaving her car parked there in order to charge it and then if she's not using it the next day because she's using some other form of transportation having to make sure she still moves it in order to avoid being ticketed or towed by the city. Just another picture reiterating uh that charging pract practicality and showing how it is causing public health and safety concerns. Um this entire section from the fence shown here to the street is public rightway. Um so any access through here done by the public is now in risk of safety as there's tripping hazards and other things. People cannot wheel a roll wheel roll a wheelchair over. Um, anyone who could be blind is going to stumble upon that and think something could be happening. Maybe the sidewalk ends. Um, so it adds a lot of just public concern with the practicality of charging the vehicle here. Um, and then so these are just examples throughout the neighborhood. This one's directly across the street. Um, this is just showing how there are examples in the immediate neighborhood of people not following the proper policy in order to get these parking pads done. From my research, uh, this property and the next two I'm going to show you did not get any permits needed to get this work done. From the minimum that I've seen, it is a permit with the engineering department to do the city rightway curbcut. And from my research, none of this has been done for any of these properties. Um, so it just kind of pushes the problem of policy enforcement and how we are regulating uh neighborhood designs. Um, shown in this image. specifically, it goes against and kind of creates that problem of park front parking is going to ruin the aesthetic of the neighborhood. These are examples that are done outside the proper codes and guidelines that are being given by the city of Reno. And so they are not matching that aesthetic of the master plan. this example being that the driveway entries two by the way instead of just the one off the front of the street um are both not five feet off the property line which is should be the city code and then the parking as seen with the car in front is not behind the front facade of the home. Um and here is another example of the same thing. All of these properties they have a they aren't following the right protocols. they aren't going through this process that we are here and trying to get this done properly and maintain design aesthetics and neighborhood design standards that were already set in place before. Um so yeah, thank you. Uh we will um go to public comment. Have we received any public comment on this item? We did not receive any public comment on this item. No one has logged in or I'm sorry has um completed um a request to speak form and we don't have anybody on Zoom wishing to speak. Great. We'll close public comment and go to disclosures. Uh I'll start. I have just read and reviewed the materials and um am familiar with the site. Commissioner Velona um reviewed the materials and I don't live very far from here. I believe it's the same neighborhood, similar neighborhood. Thank you. Commissioner Delvr, I have read the comments and am familiar with the site. Commissioner Bera, same disclosures as um Delvr and uh Roar Meer. Commissioner Williams, I've read the material and I'm familiar with the area. Commissioner Jockman drove by the site, read the materials. Uh, Commissioner Alto, uh, same disclosures. I'm happy to get us started with questions if you'd like. Um, my questions are for the applicants. Representative. Um, so I want to start by saying I think you did a really good job with your presentation. Um, I came into tonight being pretty certain at how I was like thinking I really thought I knew I was going to how I was going to vote. Um but I do have some questions for you. So um there's uh the finding is the property is characterized by extraordinary or exceptional situation or the strict application of a regulation would result in exceptional practical difficulties. I where I'm struggling is it seems like there are practical difficulties for the applicant but all of those practical difficulties seem to be selfinduced by choices they have made. At least my perception of it is uh they made a choice to have a rental unit. They made a choice to have an electric car. Um help me process this as being something that is exceptional to the property and not unique to the applicant. Yep. So that's where I was kind of trying to get into the site's history. Um so when I mentioned in 2004 someone had tried to declare for a multi parcel in for that parcel. And so what that tells me is that someone was trying to take that rental property and kind of make its own parcel so that way it could then be two separate units and then that would lead to the main unit having that hardship of no parking access besides on street at all. Um and so kind of looking at more just entirely of policy of right now it's left with that older plan of single family use that that rear unit was a garage and so that's what the original neighborhood design intent was was that you had the house in the front garage in the back so you went off the alley to park in the garage. Now that it's no longer a garage and it's a multif family parcel, it's that has that need to provide the parking for multif family, I believe. Good. Um, I have some questions for staff. Do you mind? Okay. You know, this is an interesting one, of course, because this is the example of a really old neighborhood plan and very changing policies of the city. If you were to review this case under potentially an ADU ordinance and thinking about EV charging, do you think would the city come to the same perspective on its recommendation for denial like the ADU ordinance has been reviewed or is being considered? How how do those changing factors apply here? So I think like as if if you're talking about as it relates to a variance, I think that we would maintain our our position because findings one and two still would not be met. Master plan policies um may emerge that may be that may make this um request more appropriate based off of those competing policies. But without those first two findings of of an exceptional um circumstance and a hardship, staff would maintain that that our perspective. Would there be any other planning process, a deviation or some other way if there were competing master plan policies that the applicant could pursue? I I do not believe so because other other um flexibility uh other flexibility applications either apply to very specific sections um or would apply to something that has a a numerical component that we can reduce by 50% or 10%. In this case it's it's an outright pro prohibition. So I think a variance is the only opportunity for this property to to seek this. Um yeah, so to answer the question, yes. And just one more question. Uh there's been talk about sunsetting some of these neighborhood plans, many of them, and we're going to hear another one. Um with regard to Wells Avenue, date to like the '9s. Um this is the core of our city. Things have certainly changed in 30 years. Um there has been mention for years that these some of these neighborhood plans would be sunsetted. any update on with the code cleanup that didn't seem to happen. Is it still a staff priority? What what is the status of that as far as I mean the a staff priority of of changing those? I mean it definitely wasn't they were maintained with a with a code update um in 2021. Um that was intentional. Um I don't know anything as far as staff as a as a staff identified priority to remove these necessarily. Um and I don't think council has indicated either. So, okay. It has def has certainly been mentioned in this forum. Is that at all on the uh future priority list? I'm looking to Mike. I would say it's on the future priority list. At this point, it has not been a a council priority um to remove these and there's a fairly lengthy process to go through to to do to do so. Thank you. Other questions, Commissioner? Okay. Thank you, Carter. Um, I do I agree that was a good presentation. Um, it was very helpful. Um, the photos were helpful as well. I think the timing of this too is uh it's really good. I'm glad that the application came when it did because some of my concerns with the ADU were the park. I mean, people had positions regarding and I know this is not this is a little off topic, but also I'll bring it back with some of the ad uh ADU AUD ADU ordinance. Um I think there was some uh suggestion to do away with parking and I am um vemently opposed to getting away with doing away with parking and this is a great example why we have the older neighborhoods a lot of them don't have sidewalks um and we start putting up these ADUs um we start to see issues when there's no parking on the site. So thank you. I'm glad that this this came about when it did. It's good timing. Um and it lends uh it's an example of why I think it is important to have those parking. Um, but going back to the application, um, with regard to the to the variance, um, I also agree with Commissioner Belto in the sense that a lot of these issues are self-imposed. Um, and I think if there was some foresight into kind of what some greater thought put into some of the issues that would come about, um, I think we could have addressed these sooner be because I do want to see I think the applicant should have parking. Um but when we look at the findings, how do we how do we do that? Um I I think there should be we should do some look at some potential solutions. I don't know if a variance is the way to go. Um but I I would I mean is does staff think that this is the only way to do it? Do we need to wait for an ADU to come forward and then maybe Well, and I I think stepping back a little bit when we look at the the broader code, this isn't a requirement anywhere else outside of Plumis. There is a requirement a little bit in Wells as well, I believe. um but it's not as explicit um as the Plumis neighborhood plan. Generally throughout the the city, you're allowed to have a percentage of your lot available for for parking in the front um for for residential uses. So in this case, it is happens to be the only opportunity for this, but that was because there was an intentional um intent from that neighborhood plan that restricted it for this neighborhood. So going against that intent, I think is okay. Um and then what about share with me because I I need some more information going to this variance the so even if there's a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood given these folks a lot of the folks appear to have been out of code what does that do if there's a substantial change in the neighborhood because of just kind of the natural state of how things have turned anything that we can look at with regard to that is there is that any considerations there well to chair or's point the I mean the solution would be to reopen the neighborhood plan and and and re-evaluate it or remove it entirely. That that does take a text amendment in this case and it requires also noticing in public and in the public engagement process with the neighborhood specifically. That's because it's a neighborhood specific plan. It requires a few additional steps. Thank you. Um uh Commissioner Jockman question for the applicant or applicant representative. Um, okay. So, you you made a case there about what was sort of your argument for overcoming some of that undue hard hardship. Um, the um in my review of the site, the power to the site is provided by at the alleyway. Now, you you stated that your EV, your electric vehicle had to be charged on the curb in the front. Why why can't you put it in the back, which appears to be where the power comes into the property? So the reason why is that that access is not a guarantee. Uh because the those parking spaces are used by the rear tenant. It's not a guarantee for the main property owner to have that access to that area to be able to charge. So that means the the alternative is their parking where they can which is on the street in front of the property and then they have to charge their vehicle there. But is is that because the property owner gave the other tenant, I guess, rights to park in the back? Yes. Yeah. And but it's their it's their property, right? So they could choose to Yeah. not give that right to their tenant. Yep. And then I guess that that argument kind of falls into Commissioner Noeva's point of both of these properties needing parking and parking access. And so if the property owner is deciding, I'm going to use this access now, it's removing it for the rear tenant. And so it's kind of a back and forth on either removing parking access for rear tenant or removing parking access for the main property owner. May I quickly ask, does that unit in the back have a separate electric meter? Uh, I do not know off the top of my And would then it would be a billing issue. That's probably a question for the property owner. I I don't know how they're doing it. Hi, yes. Yeah. Uh, Carla Warning House for the record, property owner. Um, yes, the uh the unit in the back does have a separate electric meter, water meter. Yes. Thank you. Anything else I can answer while I'm Was it Was it like that when you purchased the property? Was what like that? Was there a separate meter when you purchased the property? Yeah, that that has not been changed. Great, Commissioner Ber for the record. Um some follow-up questions maybe for the representative and uh thank you miss um and for Carter. It's going to we're going to volley a little bit. Um I first off maybe a statement to kind of tee up my questions. I do uh agree with uh chair Roier and vice chair Villanova's line of questioning like at least the underlying sentiment behind it. However, I do disagree with uh Villanova and Velto's uh position on it not being a hardship. Um I don't believe that transportation and what we choose to use for transportation is is should not be considered you know u not a hardship. Um and we we all deserve to be able to get from A to Z in the best way possible. Um so I guess what I'm trying to figure out maybe Carter if you can help me with a couple things. Does the property not have a driveway? That's my understanding. Yeah. The existing front of the property does not have a driveway. Okay. And then and then but the adjacent neighbor to the south does have a driveway. Yes. And I presume it's non-conforming or something along those lines. It is conforming because it leads to a garage. So there's other options that would allow them to So it leads to garage. Is that the nuance here that the current property does not have a garage so therefore it wouldn't require a driveway? Correct. Got it. Okay. That's the piece I I wasn't understanding. Um Okay. And then and then so I'll kind of noodle on that for a bit. But the other part was I think there was reference to uh potential ticketing uh if if the uh owner or maybe guest stayed for x amount of hours. Is that correct? That is correct. I will correct that the the time frame is actually 72 hours not 48 just to be okay. And they just have to move it a couple inches and it's all good or what? Technically. Yes. Oh goodness. Okay. Great. Thank you. That's all for now. Can I can I grab Carter real quick? Carter, uh, we were just talking about the house across the street, but what about the two houses immediately if you're staring at the house to the left that have driveways? That's I think is that what we were referring to? I thought that's what I was referring to is that the the southern properties do have access. Are you straight into the garage? I thought we were talking about the house across the street that has a driveway. There is a a house across the street, I believe, that does have a driveway, but the the driveway curb cut is actually because they have rear access to the the rear. Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks, Carter. I have a I have a question for you. Um, so I'm actually confused because the packet that we received shows the access on the right hand side and then what was presented tonight showed a new proposed route. So I'm just curious. Yeah. To clarify, so the the act the the the alternative that was proposed by the applicant I wasn't aware of. Okay. But thank you. um it actually would meet code technically. Okay. So that if that is an alternative that's another alternative that would actually work that would meet the code requirement. This spec this request would be specific to parking in front of the front yard or in front of the house. So would they need to do another So how what's the process then? Because again, I'm I was like, "Wow, this doesn't even look like anything." If they if um they were to move away from the the the request before us tonight, the um parking in front of the house, um it would just be a building permit um for a cur. Thank you. It's administrative. That is what I wanted to understand. Did the applicant want to add some clarification to a previous item together? So um um yeah, Christian Jones is with the with the landscaping company Fire and uh I'm again Carla Warning House the owner. Um so we have been trying to pursue this for quite some time. I started this process years ago um trying to get this parking in the front when I um realized that we it would be uh better for our family situation to rent out the unit in the back, have them park in the back. If you look at many of the houses in the neighborhood, many of these lots have been split. So, as he said, you know, the in the past it was single family. Um, you access from the back, it went in the garage. That is no longer the case in many of the lots in Plumis. They have been split some officially, so it's two separate properties. Some of them just like mine with a unit in the back. The property is for that in the back. We have worked for months trying to get this process through and originally wanted this on that northern side of the front of the lot. That made most sense to us for the way we use the property. However, in me meeting many obstacles about how to try to get that done, we said, well, is there any other possible way we could do this? And years ago, I was actually told no, that there was no way to put something elsewhere on the h on the property. But then we were told, no, maybe there is a way to do that as long as you can put some parking behind that front line of the pro of the house that that may be allowed. And that's why Christian then redesigned the plan that we submitted to try to see if we could find a way to put the the parking on the property in such a way that we could then, you know, put our vehicles there uh off the street when we're not using them and to charge them out of the way of the public. So, we changed the plan based on the comments that we heard. Can I um I'm a little confused. Okay. I'm sorry. Oh, no, no, that's okay. I just want a little bit of clarification maybe from Carter, Mike, or Carl. And if I say it all together, it sounds very confusing. So, if we deny the variance tonight, they can go with their new plan and not have to get a cup or anything. That is correct. Yes. Correct. Thank you. Just just to provide a little further clarification, the variance request would allow the parking as proposed in Carter's presentation. If if that were to be denied, they could move forward with the alternative that they presented this evening. Can I can I ask a Now I'm confused. Can I ask a question? Doesn't the existence of an alternative avenue make it so we cannot make the variance findings? Like it seems like there's another avenue. We So, so, so to clarify and and staff struggled with this one trying to find find a way to make it work. One of the main reasons that staff came to the conclusion of recommending denial is there is an alternative that meets code and that would be off the alley. That's one alternative. what was presented this evening by the applicant. That's a second alternative that would could could meet code and eliminate the need for the variance. Can I just clarify some things? So, it was just a misunderstanding, a miscommunication on my end cuz I I came originally, I think it was the second March meeting and I requested to defer it to last month, but then of course the power went out and all of that happened. Um, and so in that initial defer, I was speaking with Carter and I misunderstood that if I made changes and submitted it that he would be able to adjust those comments. But I was I misunderstood. I had to submit that directly to Carter for him to change his comments instead of just to the planning commission. And so that's why his presentation was different than what I shared because of that misunderstanding of sharing the updated information. Is there a way is there a way for y'all to achieve your goal without the major deviation tonight? uh without proposed without without the updated proposed plan that I showed, it would have to be a variance um or so or either alley access or rear parking. So, right, just to clarify. So, you could withdraw right now and move forward with your alternative plan, the preferred plan, which just so that's the one with the driveway going to the side of the home. Is that the plan that works? Let me go to the color one that's easier to see. Yes, this. Okay. So, that works and it achieves the charging and it if if you withdraw your application at this point, is there a bit of a refund still in the process? Okay. I'm sorry. Little earlier in the process, you can get some money back. Mike, this might be a question for you, but it actually does say a decision is made is is and it's a 10%. 10 in that case, yeah, it would be 10%. Okay. So if you withdraw your application, there might be an opportunity to get some money back. Yeah. And achieve your goals. Right. And before you do, Commissioner Ber for the record, just so it it's clear for all of us since we're trying to negate positives and negatives here tonight. Um why is this one okay, the alternative? Uh Carter, I um so this in this case it does not require that um vehicles are permanently parked in front of the house that there is an alternative where they have a place to go to behind the front face of the house or in other cases in in a garage. Okay. Um, and if there are instances, and I'm not speaking for code enforcement or parking enforcement on this, where they would park in front, there is a code enforcement avenue to prevent um, uh, tandem parking that that Okay. goes in front of the house. Great. Thank you, sir. As always, I would ask that we have discussion on this item because I actually think it brings up some interesting planning issues. Um, just brief discussion, but allow the applicant to withdraw before making any decisions. Perfect. Happy to get started. I would love to vote for this. I can't make the findings under a deviation. I'm a firm believer in property rights and I think they should be able to do this if they want to. I just can't get there. I hope if we vote on a deviation, you all disagree with me because I think that'd be great for them. But that's where I'm at. Um, I I think since we're in deliberations, it's typically if we're going to offer them an opportunity to withdraw the application, we got to make it clear to the applicant if there's going to be an opportunity for them to interrupt our deliberations. Madam Chair, before we get into deliberations, we do need to open public comment on this. My mistake on that one, let's uh go to public comment. I didn't receive any written uh written uh forms to speak. Do we have anyone online or anyone in chambers wishing to speak? Still the same. Yeah, we're still on Humbult Street. So, we already did public comment on this. Oh, see, we were on top of it at the beginning of this. We're all tired. Two long nights in a row, huh? Well, okay. So, we did that. Good job, us. Um, back to deliberation. We ask them if they want to withdraw first. Well, can we have our discussion before they withdraw and that way the no decision is made and then we can still talk about it. So, I just wanted to bring up that I want to support this project as well. Just uh from a ideological lens, I think we're at the point in our city where Eevee and the transition for people automotive choices are very much going that way. It can be at contrast with older neighborhoods. Um, that is where these old neighborhood plans don't always live up to the times and need to be evaluated. I also appreciated seeing solar on your roof and the idea of getting to like a net zero household is an exemplary type of um activity here in our city. Uh, the thing with a separate meter I think is a strong case. If you have an ADU that's on a separate meter, how are you supposed to charge on somebody else's bill? That sounds like the greatest thing ever, but not really in practice. Like you can't use somebody else's electricity to pay for your own. Um, so these kinds of things do need to be evaluated. I'm sorry that the only process is a variance. So hopefully that's something with the next code clean up that these kinds of things can be addressed. So any other discussion? Oh, uh, Commissioner Ber pretty much just echo chair's sentiments there. Obviously, I think I don't think uh property owner should be um deemed uh for their mode of transportation, especially for the reasons the chair mentioned. Um I do appreciate Carter's diligence, so he's always top-notch. Um and I also appreciate the applicant and your representative for doing a fine job as well. Um so I I can get behind this project. Any other discussion? Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Villain Noeva. So, the first of all, I want to apologize for taking all the line of questioning. You know, I I think if we would have done a better job and just uh Well, there was some confusion, but I think the um get there first. I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I definitely took it out of order. I jumped I put the uh horse uh before the cart and so or the cart before the horse and uh caused some confusion u myself. So, in any case, just to um I think because we are able to um I have the applicant withdraw. Um well, we're not going to make any decisions today, but I do think it was a great time for this application to come forward given the conversations about ADU. I live in an old neighborhood and I understand kind of the nuance of living in an old neighborhood, which is why again, I'm just going to throw my two cents in there that if ADUs are going to move forward, I do think we need to have requirements for parking before the um approval process. So, thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or discussion? Would you like to come up and withdraw your application again? Carloing House of the Record. Actually, no. Um the the 10% back on on what I've already paid for this is a drop in the bucket. And I actually think it's a matter of principle, too, as many of the commissioners brought up that that times have changed, the the the the way that the units are or the lots are used um has changed, and I I think it's time to think about that. So, the the small amount of money doesn't make any difference to me, especially given Reno's budget. You know, use it for something else. Um as long as as as we have some understanding that we uh well, if you voted to approve it, that would be fabulous. and we would go through with our original plan. If you did not and it was denied and we know that that we have another option for how to pursue it, then we would just submit that and go that way. Thank you. And just nothing you asking us to vote on this would definitely not affect your other alternative. I just want to be Thank you. Yeah, we probably need to do a roll call vote just to clarify. Clarify that we are Well, it's it depends on the motion. I'll make a motion. So are are we still moving forward on the motion? So we're not withdrawing the application. Commissioner Belto, just no double negatives, please. Or I won't won't do that. Um so in the matter of case number LDC25-000044, uh based upon non-compliance with the applicable findings, I move to deny the variance. Um I can't get there on a variance findings. Um, obviously respect however you all come down and I wish I could get there but we have a second. Okay. Uh, I thought we were going to do them individually. Do we want to do that? Just just give me one second. Hang on just a second. And and just for clarity, a nay would be in favor. A yes would be in agreeance with the motion. What? The motion is denying the variance. Correct. So I would be denying the variance. So a nay is supporting the approval of a variance. Commissioner Belto, you read the motion on the screen, correct? And that's the one that staff recommended. Yes. Correct. So I'll clarify. A a yes vote, a vote to affirm the motion is a vote to deny the variance. Yes. Goodness. You ready? Yes. Okay. Van Noeva. Yes. But Sarah. Uh, I guess. Should I say because I can't make the findings? I should probably clarify that. Yeah, I can't make the variance findings. Um, no. Because I can make the hardship finding if that makes sense. Delvr, yes, because I cannot make the variance finding. Uh, Williams, yes, because I cannot make the findings. Jockan, yes, same as uh, Commissioner Valto. Okay. Velto, yes. and Roire. No, because I can make the hardship findings because I think times have changed and that this is a test case for where we are in the city of Reno and because most of the block has used guerilla urbanism to build their own front driveway that's non-conforming. So I am okay. The motion to deny passes five to two. Correct. So good luck with your alternative. Oh, I do I need to read the appeal findings? I I don't think anyone's appealing this, but I will read them. Okay. Um, the appeal process, any final action, not including recommendations or failure to take action by planning commission, may be appealed to the Reno City Council by the applicant, the mayor, or a city council member, or any person who is agrieved by the action or inaction. An appeal together with the fees must be filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action filed with the city clerk. And uh chair, this is commissioner. I just wanted to clarify. I can make the heart I I mean I empathize with the applicant of their hardships if that makes sense. Okay. Yeah. So a no vote was that. Okay. All right. We're going to take just a five minute break and then finish this up. I have to get up. Where? All right, let's call this the two-minute warning. All right. Um we uh one of our commissioners did have to uh retire for the evening and we've got just a few minutes um for the notes. Um so for our clerk to return. So we'll just take two more minutes. Relax. She said she's done. She's out to I get it. Yeah. All right, getting um back to our meeting, we will go to item 5.5, apartments at Dean Deini off-site improvements. Again, uh planning commissioners Jeff Foster for the record. Uh, the second case I'm bringing you is LDC25-45, which is the Apartments at Dandini Off-Site Improvements Project. The 37.03 acre parcel uh, sorry, site is comprised of two undeveloped parcels on the south side of Dandini Boulevard, west of the intersection with Sun Valley Boulevard and east of TMCC and DRRi. The request before you tonight is a major site plan review to uh uh for hillside development as well as grading resulting in cuts or sorry fills greater than 10 feet in height. Um and this is for the access road and water line tied to LDC25-1 which is on the parcels uh the parcel to the north across Dandini Boulevard which was approved um last fall and we'll get more into that in a minute. Um, so as we zoom in, the surrounding land uses are single family residential to the east, uh, the Reno Cascade mobile home community to the south, you have TMCC and DRRI to the west, and again the undeveloped parcels to the north across Dandini Boulevard. Here um, are the uh, is the location of the apartments at Dandini. The key issues that staff analyzed are site design and hillside development and grading. Here's the master plan land use and zoning district. Um, so background on September 18th of last year, uh, the planning commission approved a major site plan review for a 402 unit multif family development on the north side of Dandini Boulevard. And the site plan uh is shown here. The project uh tonight proposes infrastructure to meet uh Truckucky Meadows Water Authority looping requirements to support development development of the apartments at Dandini project as well as future development of the subject site. The project will be constructed in conjunction with the infrastructure improvements associated with the apartments at Dandini. So turning to site design, the improvements extend south from Dandini Boulevard to a midpoint of the subject site in the area shown here. Um they then turn west and loop through the DRRi and TMCC parcel. They extend Argio Parkway and then ultimately loop back to Dandinia Boulevard. The road section is proposed to be graded to 35 ft in width including shoulders in anticipation of a providing a 26t wide primary access for future development on this site. However, since no development is proposed on the subject site at this time, the road will be paved to a 15t width providing an acceptable surface for access and maintenance of the water line. The plans show improvements ending at the DRRI and TMCC parcel and that's because the proposed improvements were limited to the portion of the project under the jurisdiction of the city of Reno. Uh it's worth noting that minor utilities are exempt from landscaping and screening requirements and staff is recommending condition number five to restrict uh construction hours due to uh nearby residential uses. Uh turning to hillside development and grading. This project is considered hillside development since slopes exceed uh 15% on approximately 70% of the site. Um grading for the uh access road and the water line is estimated to impact about 3 acres with fills expected up to 30 ft in height. Uh the minimum open space uh requirement uh is 15 and a half acres and an additional 1.12 acres of open space is required because of um development on uh slopes greater than 2:1 or sorry greater uh slopes greater than 30%. Therefore the total amount is 16.62 acres of open space required. The project includes 35 acres or approximately 92% of the site um will remain undisturbed as open space. Um the applicant uh has complied or will comply with all uh aspects of code with regard to grading uh disturbed areas 2 to1 slopes etc. I'm not going to read all of that and conditions 6 to 8 are recommended to uh enhance grading techniques uh in including treatment of slopes rip wrap and noxious weeds and those same conditions were on the apartments at Dandini project. Here are the recommended findings for a major site plan review. Staff can make all recommended findings. There's an additional set of findings for Phil's and Hillside Development for a major site plan review. Again, staff can make all recommended findings. And here's the recommended motion. And the applicants uh representative uh will be also making a presentation. Thank you. Good evening. Still evening. Yeah. Stacy Huggin for the record Rogers representing the applicant in this case. Um Jeff did a great job summarizing this project and so I'm going to quickly go through my slides. Try not to duplicate or bore you all with the same things. Um I don't remember if all of you were on the commission when we brought forward the apartment project, but just so that you can see really um where we are and what we're doing. Uh what you see on the overhead there, the parcel to the north, as Jeff identified, was the apartment project that was in front of this commission back um in September. Um the apartments themselves took up only a portion of that northern parcel. The rest of the area that's not highlighted in yellow was um to remain undeveloped, undisturbed. Um the parcel outlined in blue with the star on it is the subject of this um major site plan review for the grading. Uh here's a little bit bigger scaled map. I know Jeff had one in his presentation too that just kind of shows how it all um lines up together. You can see the apartment project uh on the north parcel. how the proposed road and utility line come south through the subject parcel um and extend to the property line and then ultimately um at some point connect into the um Dandini Research Park DRP properties where it will actually create a loop um and then also allow um DRRi in the future to develop on that um southern portion off of the roundabout uh in the future using some of those utilities as well. Uh again with the slope map Jeff talked about um you know that how much um open space was required. We do meet that requirement. We did work very hard with this alignment to put it um in places that did not um impact slopes over 30% as much as we possibly could. This is the best place for that um with the least amount of impact. Um we obviously are still hitting some slopes over 30% but again we really tried hard to minimize that impact. Um one of the other things I want to just note is that I mean this piece of property is zoned mixeduse suburban so at some point in the future it could potentially be developed. Um if that happens this access road will um be the access to that future development potential. there are um those big green areas that could potentially accommodate future development. That's not on the table today. It's not part of a plan. We haven't explored it at this point, but it this road would serve both purposes if that happened. That is my presentation. Um if there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. All right, we'll close. Um we'll go to public comment. Did we receive any requests to speak or any online interest? We did receive correspondence on this item that was forwarded to the planning commission and has been entered into the record. Also, I just wanted to make note that we did take the public comment that we received from the last meeting and I carried it over. Um, we did not receive any request to speak forms on this item and I don't believe we have anybody on Zoom that wishes to speak on this item. Okay, seeing none, we'll close public comment and go to disclosures from the commission starting to the left. Commissioner Berser, for the record, uh spoke with the applicant's representative and read reviewed material, including email. Commissioner DelviR, I read all of the information that was sent and met with the representatives and I actually tried to go out to the site, but uh it was a little too little too steep for me. Commissioner Villaina, no disclosures. Commissioner Roar Meer, same. Commissioner Williams, uh read this uh material and um met with the applicant um representative. Commissioner Jockman uh phone call with the member of the applicant's team and read emails in opposition to the project. All right. Do we have any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Mer for the record. Um just some clarifying questions perhaps for Stacy. Um um hey Stacy, good job. Uh it sounds maybe uh just clarifying question. It sounds like for the subject parcel uh in discussion are you all mainly focused on infrastructure improvements? Is that is that correct or Stacy Huggin? For the record that is correct. It is um a waterline. Yeah. Um for Toma to serve the apartment project which was something that um we had discussed as part of the apartment um project approval. We knew then that we would have to provide this water line to the south. there is not another option to serve water to this site to the apartment project um without taking the looping in this direction because of elevations and topography. Great. And and to build upon that um is that infrastructure, water, perhaps road something that I think in our discussions you mentioned that even the enti entities like TMCC and DRRi could uh tap into or leverage? uh they would certainly have the ability um to uh connect to those uh should they choose to. Okay. Um I would just to sort of dovetail off of that um you know when we did the apartment project um I know that you had some concerns about um coordination with um the INI group um and we heard you and we um left that meeting and as we have explored this project on the south property um we've been working very closely with the DRP folks um sorry Desert Research Parks that's who actually owns um that area and INHI and TMCC. Um they're all on the same um page. Uh and there is a signed a memorandum of understanding between all of the parties for this project to occur and us to do improvements within their um land holdings. Look at you all. That that's music to my ears. No. No. That's fantastic. Great job. Um I think that's all I have at the moment. Great. Uh Christina, Commissioner Delvr, I have a question for you, Stacy. Yes. Um, one of the I know this might seem kind of petty, but one of the public comments we received a couple of weeks ago, which is a while ago, but um, they were talking about and we didn't see sort of the the elevation pictures with the colors and stuff like that, but they were talking about the color of the gravel on on the and then I had this really bad pun that uh I wrote a couple weeks ago that said, "Is that color set in stone?" Uh bump bump. Um so you know I I saw that public comment. I appreciate it. Oh, sorry. Stacy Huggin for the record. Um I think it's it's hard to address color on that hillside. But what I did is I asked um our folks to try to put together a little bit of a photo simulation. And Michelle, may I put this on the overhead? And I I I have two of them. So tell me if you need me to move that a little higher. Okay. So, um, Commissioner, on the top picture, the gray area is the project, um, effectively where we're grading and impacting. Um I took on this bottom picture um based on the comment that had been submitted. Um and this is just using Google Earth. So um we we tried to use what we could at what we had at our hands. Um so this is the image of the proposed disturbed area from the intersection of El Rancho and Dandini. Um I think you know over time while those look gray rock color there now um we would anticipate that over time um the natural vegetation would likely fill in in those areas. Um and then those would actually probably weather and not be that color ultimately. Um I do have just I I had another picture. I think it's actually the same. It's just zoomed out a little bit further. Awesome. Does that answer your question? It it does. Again, I just wanted to sort of address some of the comments that we we received. The other question I had for you was um and we talked a little bit about this uh how how this will actually benefit uh DRRi and TMCC. actually didn't really talk about TMCC here, but um just curious as to how so if this water line is built then other people will be able to tap into it or whatever and leverage it if they need to again like the soccer field I think for TMCC was one of them. And could I ask you to put my presentation back up please? Oh, let's see if I can find a good picture for you. That's a good one. So, um the the picture on the left there shows the soccer field at um that that is TMCC's soccer field. Um when that soccer field was built, um they even today do not have water there. So, they do not have um permanent restrooms at that site. they have um portable sandy huts of some sort. Um by putting in this water line um they would have the potential to connect into that water line. Um also as a part of this project because we would be um ultimately cutting into Rajio Parkway, that portion of Ragio Parkway um that would receive some new pavement on it. Um, if you've driven on that road right now, it's not in great condition. So, as a result of this project, there would be new pavement put on that road, which would really improve the long viability of that road section. Thank you. That's all I had. Uh, Commissioner Jockman. Um, okay. So, one thing that I take a look at when trying to review all of these applications is identifying uh conformance with the master plan. Now, the staff report listed a number of items here that you know, water supply, development constraints, hillside development, so forth. Um, but I was not here for the housing project. Um, and it sounds like this waterline is needed for the housing project. Is that correct? That's correct. Without the waterline, the the housing project, which is an affordable 100% affordable housing project, will not be built. So hearing that, um, obviously the master plan is laced with a number of, um, principles and policies that indicate they would like to see more housing in the in the in our community. Um, so, you know, I guess hearing that, would it be fair to say that in an indirect relationship, this project by approving it would bring us into conformance with a number of other uh, guiding principles that are focused on housing? I believe that's a fair statement to make. Okay. Thank you. Do you have any any additional questions? Go ahead. Uh Commissioner Villaina, thank you. Um when looking at the master plan, um what and maybe this is for staff. Um when looking at the master plan, what neighborhood does this and I understand we're not looking at the apartments. I was not here for the apartment application. Um had I been who knows which way I would have ruled it. Um but and I understand we're looking at the water line. Uh nevertheless, I think they go hand in hand. Um and so a lot of the things that we consider for the apartments, we need to consider for this as well. So when looking at the master plan, what neighborhood does this fall in? Stacy, do you remember what when you say like the central neighborhoods or the foothill neighborhoods, outer neighborhoods? Yeah. Of outer neighborhoods. It's within an innovation area. What's part of the is with an innovation employment area for the structure plan of the master plan. Okay. And so what are uh I'm trying to find where that is because I'm not Is that the apartments or the both both? Okay. Both maybe while we're looking that up. Why did this not come together as an application if if we if Tom was already letting the apartments know that this was part of the project? I'm just curious what was why. Yeah. Stacy Huggins for the record. Um, we had not finalized the full alignment of the water line when we came forward with the apartment project. Um, we again we knew we had a discovery from Tama that said we know the water line's going to have to go through the parcel somewhere, loop around and come back, but the alignment, the final alignment hadn't been determined yet, chair. And so, um, we wanted to also make sure that the apartment project was approved before we went through the whole effort of grading the engineering work for this southern portion of the parcel. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Um, oh, um, oh, sorry. Oh, go. I guess who was responding? Yeah, we'll have Jeff come up. Um, so the I don't see that neighborhood. I only see general as far as the general neighborhoods. I see um when I'm looking at the master plan, I see central neighborhoods um outer neighbor employment. So what does that mean? It's in the innovation center. Where is center? So where is that? So the where would I find the employment center in the master plan? I'm just trying to give me give me just one moment. I can pull up the master plan and get you what page number it's on. Okay, I see. Okay, so let me I see. Innovation areas. I found it. Okay. So, we're looking at dense. Okay. Interesting. So, this is in an innovation area. Um, that's how it's labeled in the master plan. Um, a mix of uses. The overall mix of uses in innovation areas should be guided by the following applicable master plans as amended. U Oh, is that because of the Truckucky uh Meadows Community College? Interesting. Yep. Okay. Um I definitely would have thought this would have been the foothills. Um fell in the foothills. So in this I guess public spaces. Uh okay. So that is interesting. Um good to know. Okay. Because a lot of that stuff that would typically apply for foothills doesn't apply in this case. Okay. Because my concern would be like urban wild interface things like that. Okay. That is helpful. Thank you. And then with regard to the drainage way, um it looks like there's an existing natural drainage way near the northern edge of the parcel um that will be crossed by the proposed access road. Uh h so what are so what happens with the drainage way? Does it just get cut off or do we is it redirected, Stacy? It's it's being perpetuated. Correct. The drainage way. Yeah, it's what? It's it's being perpetuated with a culvert. Okay. And how does that work? A bridge going over it with a culvert, a metal or a concrete pipe of some sort with there would just be a culvert under the road that would conflate convey those flows back into the to the natural channel. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And it's not a major drainage way. So it it's not afforded the same, you know, protections as the there was a major drainage way on the apartments at Dandini project. Um so there are extra considerations for major drainage ways. Um uh this one is not a major drainage way because it doesn't drain more than 100 acres. So um it's not afforded the same protections. Okay. This is kind of a unique site. Okay. Thank you. You're bet. Okay. Are we ready for discussion or more questions? More questions. Um I'm going to just start discussion by saying, you know, I think this is a function of timing. Had the information been available, probably would have come in as one project. I still support an affordable housing project adjacent to a community college for all of the good reasons that those things exist. So, you get my support wholeheartedly. Commissioner, for the record, similar sentiments. And then I'll just say this. I know it's related but separate. I I believe that we're anticipating additional affordable uh housing development on the southern side of that property uh closer to 395 and clearacre and so forth. So I think there's a trend to to do that in that region and uh but keeping that separate and just with this project alone I really appreciate the evolution of it and Stacy for the work you've done to further cultivate that partnership with those folks around there and try to also meet with the public so I can get behind this as well. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, um, yeah, I can get behind this. I can make the findings. Um, I appreciate the work that went into this and and Carter, we had conversations a couple of weeks ago when we were getting a lot of public comments, but that was about the apartments that we were already decided on. And I also recognize that obviously without the um the waterline, we will we won't be able to have those affordable housing. So, I appreciate that. here. Go ahead, Commissioner Villanoeva. Um, so I will say I will support this, but I do need to make some notes for the record. Um, number one, I don't really like when these projects are separated like this because in the past, what I've seen is I've seen uh projects that maybe shouldn't necessarily have passed, but because certain components of it were separated like an access way, which I I remember seeing in um Verdi, there was a particular project that comes to mind where it probably shouldn't have come forward without the necessary access road and everything that was required uh with an application. I don't really like I sometimes I think they're maliciously motivated when they come forward separate like that with material pieces to the project missing. Um I again I'm go I'm gonna support this project. Um I didn't get to see what the application looked like for the apartments. Um maybe I would have supported it, maybe I wouldn't have. There are some things that are concerning here. Um but again, I didn't see that application. And what I have in front of me is this water pipeline. Um, a lot of material pieces missing here when we're trying to look at the big picture, especially when we're looking at the master plan and trying to figure out thoughtful development for the city. Um, but again, I will support this project. It is kind of a unique situation and that it is in an innovation zone given the the university. Um, so given those factors, um, that's all for me. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Williams, I can make all the findings and I have a motion if you'd like. Great. Uh, in regards to case number LDC25-000045, uh, based upon the compliance with the applicable findings, I recommend that the planning commission approved the major site plan review subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Jockman second. All in favor? I. None opposed. Good luck with your project. Moving to item 5.6, Milness Family Zoning Map. May we start with the presentation from staff. It's okay. I'll hobble my way over there. Well, good evening members of the commission. For the record, my name is Leah Picotti and I am the associate planner with the city of Reno Development Services and this evening I am presenting an application for a zoning map amendment. So, to give you a little bit of context, this site is way up in the northern port northwest portion of Reno um above uh I 80 and 4th Street up there north of Somerset. It is a 132 acre parcel, sorry, 132 acre site made up of three parcels. And the request before you tonight is a zoning map amendment from specific plan district Ventana Point to 38.5 acres of large lot residential 1 acre um minimum size 1 acre sorry 1acre density and 93.7 acres of parks greenways and open space. So, what you see on the board before you is what the current zoning looks like with the SPD in pink and what the proposed zoning looks like with that PGOS designation on the northern portion and that bit of large lot residential down on the southern portion. Key issues that staff analyzed in this request were compatibility with the surrounding zoning and uses and conformance with the master plan land use designation um of single family NPOS which here you can see that master planned land use designation which matches the zoning that the applicant is proposing here today. On the board are the development standards. So, the differences between Ventana Point and the LLR1. Um, obviously the LLR1 is a much more much less dense and more strict zoning district. Um, mostly it's uh going to be the lot size there going from 7,000 square ft, which would allow about six uh six homes per acre to one home per acre. Zoning map amendments are on the board. Uh it conforms with the state law and it conforms with the master plan. Recommended motions on the board. And that's all I have for you tonight. I'm here and available for questions. And the applicant also has a presentation. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good evening. My name is Eric Hasty. I'm with Wood Rogers and I'm also representing the applicant, the Mils family who is here in attendance today. Um, it's pretty uh straightforward zone change. And so I just want to kind of go into some of the the background and and why we decided to to go down the route we did. Um, I think we all have a good idea of where this is located. Again, this is the entire site is 132 acre site. Um the current master plan designation does allow for about 38 and a half acres of single family. Um but looking at the site and uh considering access, there are two points of access. One um off of Sandine Drive that's potentially for future development and there is also an easement through the city of Reno property on Peine Pines Court. So two potential points of access for this site. Um but although there is this site is large 132 acres um not all of that is developable. The uh very dark brick red that you see there on the slope map is over 30% um of slopes. And so that's typically considered non-developable. The most developable portions of this which are in green and yellow are located to the south. And that's really in kind of in line with what the master plan is showing. Um the history of this site, um this this SPD was approved in 2007 and um allowed for up to 70 homes with a minimum lot size of 7,000. Um with this with this SPD, there was also infrastructure improvements that are required if any development goes up there, whether it's one lot or 70 lots. um it has to be serviced by a a local road with a curb gutter sidewalk on both sides. There are some also there are um major drainage way. There is a major drainage way that goes through the site and in order to access the most um developable area of this you typically would have to cross that major drainage way in this SPD that would require a conspan bridge that consists of a minimum of a 20 foot wide um tunnel basically and a 12ft tall one and this is really to allow for pedestrians to go underneath that but also at the time the thinking was to have um wildlife go under there. Um the the thing that's with the SPDs to uh the the commissioners um kind of talking points on the on the last um one of the last uh things we heard about is the SPD is kind of frozen in time. So since 2007, we have gone the city of Reno has gone through a master plan amendment as well as updated their code. This SPD has stayed the same since 2007 and it kind of reflects a lot of the development that was going on in 2007. There wasn't really a a guaranteed that this was going to be the edge of the city. Um today it's a little more clear that this most likely will be the edge of the city. So what does the development need to look like going forward? What should the future development look like going forward? and does this SPD really reflect what um has been updated in the master plan and in the zoning code and really um don't typically would say this but the the actual code uh now would give more flexibility as far as uh what types of developments can go up there and the infrastructure that it's that it would that would be able to serve that. Um most recently uh a tenative map was approved in 2021 and allowed 44 units on this specific site itself. Um and that has has been since expired. So um with that with our proposed zone change we went based on the master plan we were looking at what zoning would be appropriate for this and since considering this is on the edge of the city of Reno limits looking at the zoning to the south SF5 SF3 um and the GR designation to the to the north which is in the county what is appropriate for this specific development. Um, and with the master plan, it really allowed for anywhere between when we're talking densities and what was reflective of the master plan with the 38.5 acres, it could have been from 308, uh, units for density up to 15 units, right? And so, um, based on the history of this site and understanding that when the tenative map was approved, the last tenative map that was approved on this, there was a lot of vocal opposition to the amount of lots that were up there and a concern with the amount of lots, especially with the 70 that are currently allowed. We knew uh we we thought it would be best to um take those considerations into account and propose the LR1 zoning designation. So, not only does this help provide that transition between the the uh zoning destinations to the south and to the north, but it also is taking in consideration um what the neighbors have concern has voiced in projects past. Um I just also want to point out um Leo went over this pretty well. So uh there there is a stipulation within the Vantana point um that 60% of the site would be preserved for open space. So 60% of the site is about 79.3 acres. What we're proposing tonight would include 94 acres or 71% of the site. So there would be an increase uh a guaranteed increase of um of open space with just the zoning. So, looking forward to the future, um the the Milton's family purchased this property in January of 2025. That's not 2024 as it's shown up there. They they purchased the property this year. So, they had nothing to do with the past um approval of the developments. They're looking to develop this um as a as as a much much less um development than than what was that is currently allowed on there. Um there is no development proposed at this time. But I would like to point out that with the with the major drainage way that's on site as well as the steepness of the slope any development whether it be one lots, two lots, three lots or seven or 40 lots which would be allowed um you would have to probably come through to the planning commission for a major site plan review. So um with that that concludes my presentation. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We'll go to public comment. I did receive one uh public comment in opposition but not wishing to speak from Robert Miller um on behalf of him, his wife, owners of adjacent property, concerned about potential development related to damage to neighbor to the to his property, her property, and the neighbors, particularly the rock wall and wood fence along the property. um what will be uh the recourse could any damage occur. So that was there any other public comment? So we did receive correspondence on this item um that was forwarded to the planning commission and has been entered into the record. Um I don't know if we have anybody on Zoom that wishes to speak. Doesn't appear that anybody is raising their hands at this time. So, okay. Thank you. We'll close public comment and go to disclosures from the commission. Starting with to the right. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, uh, phone call with the applicant member of applicants team. Uh, Commissioner Williams, read all the materials. Uh, phone call with the applicant. um conversations with local area residents. Um some social media discussion uh live in the proximity of this um development and represent um the property that abuts it to the what uh west. Okay. All right. Uh Commissioner Aurora Meyer read and received emails. Commissioner Velona, um I'm familiar with the area. and no other disclosures. Commissioner Devier, I'm familiar with the site and read materials and also spoke with the um applicants representatives. Commissioner Bisera, same disclosures as uh Commissioner Villa Nova. All right. Um anybody have questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Bisera for the record. I have one for Leah. Yeah, you can hang out there if you want Leah. you to get up and walk around. All right, get that blood going. Good deal. Hey, Leah. Just uh a couple quick ones. Um I guess since the fiscal impact analysis assumes only four homes will be uh built now. Will um a new FIA be required if future uh development is proposed like up to 38 I believe? Uh thank you Leo Picati for the record. Yes, theoretically, I think the thing that's most important about this parcel is that any significant development is going to require entitlements and they'll be back before this body. So, depending upon what that development is, it could trigger another fiscal analysis. It could or it definitely will. Like, depends on what development it is. Can you elaborate just a little bit? Um, I think fiscal analysis are required on anything over is it 20 acres? 20 acres. So if they came in with a tenative map that was over 20 acres, then a fiscal analysis would be required again. And per state law, they can um they can subdivide up to four parcels without triggering the requirement for a tenative map. Leah, to clarify, a a tenant map would not trigger a subsequent fiscal analysis on this parcel. How Okay. Strictly a zone change requirement. It's strictly zone change. Sorry, it's a little little late tonight, but I but I would like to point out as Lee Lee pointed out, given the constraints of this site and the the need to cross a drainage way to access the majority of the site, no matter what, that would trigger a major site plan review that would come back before this board. Okay, even if it was just one house. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. Just wanted kind of clarity on that. And then I may maybe to address the public concern that we heard earlier. Would there be any recourse that neighbors can take should there be damage? Uh whatever that might be. Um that's a good question. I think it depends on um I don't know what the fence or the rock wall are or whose property they're on. Um obviously if it's on the applicant's property, they can make modifications to their property as they see necessary. Um, I'd need more information about what that is to figure out if that was something that was required under Vontana Point, whose property it's on, so on and so forth. Great. Thank you. I I do have a couple more, but I'll just say this for now that I do appreciate the transition from, you know, really single family to to uh a little bit more rural, you know, kind of does a nice transition fade into uh peine um and hopefully less impactful to some of the open space that's out there that many people use. Um, so I'll just say that for now. Um, actually I think Era can answer these questions. Um, so a couple couple of the public remarks that we received a while ago. one was about sort of sustaining some of the native plants and also the access to the public or to the open space as well. Can you address some of that? Yeah. Uh Eric Hasty for the record. So, um as far as the the open space and I think the the concern and correct me if I'm wrong, the concern with the the the area is the trees that are on the property specifically. And so, um, any future development, we will definitely be taking that into consideration, especially because that was one of the main concerns of the tenative map that was approved, uh, a while ago. Um, but the, um, the most developable, uh, land is kind of out of that area. Um, and so, um, I think one of the the reasons why the the, um, applicant really liked that area was because of those trees and they're they're interested in preserving those themselves. And, uh, to your point of access, um, you know, they they understand that although there's not public land to the north of them, um, the city of Reno property is to the south of them and there is a lot of recreation use in there. And so they are um in agreement because we did get a cons uh request for for access through the property. Um they they're the applicant's willing to work with the surrounding property owners to allow for um access through their property um and to make sure that you know any easements that are that are available will will still be perpetuated with future development. Great. Thank you. Um, S Commissioner Villan Waver for the record. So, um, it's going from an SPD and then currently presently it's an SPD and in this case the text amendment would provide for um public public spaces public open spaces and then is it partially large open or uh large law? So, is the are the is the parcel being divided? What's the text amendment exactly? No, it's so this is for a zone change and um zone change. I thought it was Did I get that wrong? No, we're we're trying to remove the SPD completely. And so we would go to straight zoning, which would be uh parks, greenways, and open space. So it's 132 acres. 94 of that would be the parks, greenways, and open space. And then 38.5 would be the LLR1 designation. So you guys would be declaring that. So that's what it would be with this change. Correct. So okay. So it would go from being able to develop potentially obviously it's not a lot of it's not developable necessarily but potentially in theory developable SPD to open spaces greenways um and then large lot half and I mean half and half or not half and you can see the the outline there. So the the yellow is the LLR1 and then uh the green is going to be the PGOS. So any development that would occur would be in that yellow. Yeah. Okay. So, um so in theory though it would be going from fully developable to correct the just the yellow. Okay. And that's number one. And number two, the um I understand that this is the the ability to develop three part uh three I'm sorry it is late. Three houses or three single family homes per acre. Is that I think that's what I read. It's it's one and one per acre. Yeah. One per acre. Okay. Um, and so given the size of this law and that restriction, how many homes are anticipated or could be potentially in theory placed on that lot? The density would allow for 38 uh it's 38.5 acres. So, it's it's either 38 or 39. I don't know how you 30 38 38 on that develop portion. Okay. Um, and this may be for staff. You can answer it if you if you know the answer. Going back to the master plan, the neighborhood, this does appear to be in Foothill, uh, right foothill neighborhood. Is am I right about that? I believe I believe so. Okay. And so with some of those principles, can you just kind of touch on some of those because I don't see cluster development and I know that is one of the factors to be considered, but if you want to just highlight some of those in your mind that make this a good site. Some of the So okay, some of the things for that. So really like the reason why we are proposing this LLR1 designation is because uh the master plan doesn't want to see increased densities um on the outskirts of town and anything below LLR1 would be an increase in density. So if we did have well except for cluster development which is high density isn't it true but we're not proposing that now and and that's this is just a zone change. So if we did do a cluster development, we would have to come forward with another entitlement at the at that time. Well, large lot would be the opposite of a cl I mean, right? Because you couldn't put cluster on a large lot. Or could you? Am I you? Oh, you can. Okay. Good. Sorry. That's okay. That's okay. So theoretically, you could use cluster development because the large lot is 38.5 acres. that designation, you have a maximum of 38 units that could be put here. If they wanted to do cluster development, anything over four is going to require a tenative map and a major site plan review to come forward to this body. In that case, they would still be limited to 38 units, but they could cluster them to preserve o to preserve more open space. Got it. Thank you. That's really helpful. Okay. I just wanted to double check some of that. I think some of these other things, the cuts in the slopes because he was kind of covering some of these cuts in the and fills wouldn't be an issue in this case because of the open spaces. It's so everything you're talking about in the foothills neighborhood and all of those policies for hillside development and cluster development and all of that stuff is all developmentbased policy. So, we don't know because there's no development associated with this request yet. We don't. what we can kind of foresee before. I mean, my thing is I'm trying to be proactive rather than Definitely. And I think that designating the majority of the parcel parks, greenways, and open space, which aligns exactly with that designation on the master plan is a way of preserving all of those things. And and this I I can guarantee this is going to require some other entitlement for drainageways, hillside development, um grading, something else at some point. and development will come forward on this parcel and you will likely get to see that. I agree and I agree with your statement earlier about this the preser preservation of the open spaces. This does a better job obviously than the current state. Absolutely. Which is probably why I'm likely going to support it. Um I'm just trying to understand because if we if we do if we we got to look at the whole picture and I understand that the the design isn't going to come until later and that's just how the planning process works especially when you're on the planning commission. But we can kind of predict. We can kind of foresee what to expect. And part of my line of question is really to try and understand that. However, I generally agree with you. This is actually a better position to be in than with this SPD um for purposes of the Foothill neighborhood. But thank you. I appreciate your um responses. Can I just clarify one thing on the the density and the number of allowed units? 38 is a theoretical maximum. This is likely a hillside development as Leah mentioned which the code requires density reduction factors based on slopes. So I would anticipate that it would be less than 38 but 38 is a theor the theoretical maximum. Yes. Great. Commissioner Ber for the record uh just while we have you up here so you're not limping back and forth Leah. Um what's the city's current position on feasible code compliance? um or feasible code compliant access points to the site I guess especially from Sandiston Pivine Pines Court and Sunline Extension. Um that's a great question for the applicant. Let me find out what they have for access. All right, welcome back Eric. Yeah, Eric Hasty for the record. Um so there are there are potentially um three points of access that could be used utilized in the future. Okay. Uh there is an easement um off of let me go back. Okay. So the these these two stars here are the most likely ones. There are easements um off of Peine Pines Court which is to the left and Sand Dustine on the right. Um so two easements that go into the property. Um, one of them is the Peine Pines Court one is through the the City of Reno property and then uh I believe there is also an easement um through um from Sunline Drive that could connect into that. Okay, great. Thank you sir. Any other questions? All right. Anybody wish discussion? Uh I'll just for discussion purposes um I I've sp spoke with quite a few residents that most impacted in this area. We've had some decent social media conversations um on next door about it. Um they were all you know prepared for the last reiteration of this. So um everybody on this northern side of town is in full support of the zoning change. Um, I think there's always some conversation about access um to public, you know, to um public spaces, especially in this hill that's had a history of, you know, 100 years of access uh when it comes to, you know, various uses. So, just, you know, implore the the uh owners to work with the neighboring communities to make sure that that access is preserved. But um overall um in support and I got a motion if you're ready. I'd also just encourage those folks to use the traditional channels to show their support and consider Yeah. Sometimes you got to sometimes you got to dive a little deep, get them over to the email and whatnot. Yeah. Uh, in regards to case number LDC25-000046, based on the compliance with the applicable findings, I move to recommend that the city council approve the zoning map amendment ordinance. By ordinance, Commissioner Delvier. I second. All right. Motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Nay. Or seeing none. It's late. Um, good luck with your project. All right, we are moving to 5.8, security circle zone change. We'll start with presentation from staff. Carter Williams, associate planner. For the record, um, just to get us started, this is a uh a zoning map amendment request um for a property in North Valleys. Thank you. It's located at 7720 Security Circle. So, it's located on the generally north or sorry, excuse me, uh southeast of Security Circle and North Virginia Street. The specific request is from mixeduse suburban to mixed employment. The uh master plan land use designation for the property is all mixed employment. So, there's this massive block um of mixed employment. On this side, this was a um a change um from from the 2017 master plan for this area. Um, previously this was um associated with a mixeduse corridor along North Virginia Street. So the um current zoning along this section of the corridor is mixed use suburban um but the city um or this is non-conforming according to the master plan. Um currently so the city is looking for all these properties eventually to be to um transition into this mixed employment zoning uh zoning designation. Um the specific use changes that would come with this is it expands light industrial uses. So so compared to other industrial zones like industrial commercial and and and industrial this is definitely scaled back. It's it's um uh primarily for light industrial and industrial support of office uses. Um it does still maintain most commercial uses like restaurant uh retail, restaurant, bar and other um uh uses that are are would yeah they would be carried over from the mixed use suburban zone. Um because of its proximity to residential to the uh west um these properties would be subject to a site plan review. So additional review for compatibility with residential. Um a big change that comes with this though is that residential uses on this side would be prohibited. And if you look at the area, it's it's already fairly intense um industrial particularly as you go up security circle. Um as far as development standards, most are not changing. Um it actually is limiting the maximum height to 55 ft where there was no limit before. Um and like I said, there's residential agencies standards that would apply um for compatibility. On the screen are the findings um for a zoning map amendment and staff was able to meet all these findings. And on the screen is the recommended motion. Um the applicant is actually not available this evening. They had to um leave because of the the lateness unfortunately. No, we appreciate that. Um do we have any public comment on this item? I did not receive any public comment on this item. Wait, hang on just a second. I want to make sure I'm on the right item. I'm really getting sleepy here. Yes. 5.8. I did not receive any correspondence. No public or uh request to speak forms were received and no one on Zoom is raising their hand. Great. We'll close public comment and go to disclosure starting with Commissioner Bera. Commissioner Ber for the record uh read and reviewed material and familiar with the site. Commissioner Delvr same as Commissioner Bisera. Commissioner Villaina, no disclosures. Commissioner Rarer read and received emails in the staff report. Commissioner Williams uh read the material provided. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Very good. Um do does anyone have questions for staff or the applicant? Were there any opposition from neighboring neighbors? We did not receive any public comment for this case. Commissioner Visera, happy to make a motion. Um, but you know, if we want to discuss this a bit more, too. I just get nervous when I see something switched to mix employment because I I'm worried that there's going to be a warehouse put in. Um, yeah. So, I had a just a quick kind of question about that. Can you explain to me again what and maybe it's because I'm tired or whatever, but uh why why this change is being made. This is the city trying to bring it up to compliance or this is Yeah. Yeah. So the this the sorry sorry no go ahead. This area was identified in the master plan process to bring um our industrial land area up and for that matter it was identified as mixed sub USBC suburban and it wasn't changing to anything else. It was we were seeing um a lot of process coming in um to maintain industrial uses here. Um so in 20 uh 2017 it was identified to transition this section of the corridor to um to more of an industrial industrial framework but still respecting that this is still within an area that has residential. Um below it still maintains the mixeduse suburban but above it um is full-on industrial from and there's there's a warehouse there now. Oh is there? Yeah. So you can see in the left the little white line but not to the south. Thank you. Yeah, there there's a number of warehouses. Okay. No, that that's helpful actually. And I am tired and part of the reason I could have I probably could have figured that out. But uh no that's helpful because then it because again it's it's it's you know part of the issues with that area with the north valleys is that we have so much residential and then right near industrial and I don't know which came first. Um but I just want to make sure we just make a decision and stick to it instead of having this peace meal situation. Um, so that's kind of why I wanted to know. So, go ahead. If are we if we're in um uh I feel like it's uh not just speaking of the site, we've got 1.5 acres. If you actually wanted to put a warehouse there, it would be extremely cumbersome to do so just with you know, I I understand what cons what what the concerns are with regard to residents of Ward 4. um that site I'm I'm speculating admittedly a little bit but it would be very hard to put a large scale warehouse in a site of that size slope too. So sure. Um so I I I I'll concede I'm speculating a little bit but I don't I don't see that as a meaning viable site for that. All right. Uh any more discussion questions? We've handed this one in an expedited manner. Let's get it done. Great. All right. Let's uh anybody care to give a motion? Uh Commissioner Mer, happy to. And appreciate uh Vice Chair Venova's line of questioning just to get clarification there. So that's always good. Thank you, Vice Chair. Um Carter or whomever has the magic wand if you don't mind helping me out here? Thank you, sir. Commissioner Bisera, for the record, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment. and I can make all the findings. Uh this is Commissioner Delvr and I second that. And just for clarification, the it's LD LDC 25 00048. Thank you, Commissioner. Great. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I Congratulations. Good luck with your project. Um, yeah. All right. Uh, moving to 5.9, the last development item of the evening, and that is 327 East Taylor Street Apartments. Carter, are you going to do us the honor? Say yes. I didn't feel like leaving. Carter Williams, associate planner. For the record, wait for the presentation. Um, but this is a request for a major deviation for parking. So, yeah, the property is located at 327 East Taylor. This is uh north of Taylor Street between Wheeler Avenue and Wells Avenue. So, the specific request is to reduce the required parking from nine spaces to seven spaces. Um, and I want to clarify that too. This this is specifically a uh deviation request just for the parking. So everything else in this request meets code. Um, so this is the that's the scope of of our um review tonight. Uh, this uh property is located within the multif family residential 30 units per acre zoning district and is within the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan um and within the mixed residential 30 sub plan area. The Wells Avenue neighborhood plan has special parking requirements. Um, and the specific one applied to this property would be 1.25 parking spaces required for each two-bedroom unit. So, there's seven space uh seven units. It equals about 8.75 um spaces when we round up to nine. What's interesting about the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan is historically prior to 2021, it was the lowest parking um requirement area in the city outside of downtown. So in 2021 when our standards were um re-evaluated from from an industry parking standard perspective um that actually flipped. This is now the most intense um as far I mean for for our overlays um which is interesting but uh property is located within the master plan land use designation of multif family neighborhood generally um staff was able to identify uh specific master plan policies that look at um first of all infill Wells Avenue is is um urbanized neighborhood prioritizes infill um RTC has proposed a condition for a trip reduction program and there's generally a bunch of transit um facilities in the area that would that staff feels would support this request and the design of the park the the property generally has parking um access from the alley exclusively which is um uh something that's in our master plan but it's also required within the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan on the screen is the site plan so as you can see there's no access from East Taylor Avenue um all spaces proposed on site are to be accessed from the alley um as it stands. So this property outside of Wells would actually meet standard code. Seven units um of this size in anywhere in the city for multif family would require seven spaces um and two would be allowed to be parked on street. Um it's it's just the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan where we have this conflict between policies where um the property owner is seeking to utilize a density bonus to bring up the um allowed number of units for the property. Um and a barrier to that is parking. Um just to give context to the surrounding area. So this is these are some um shots. the vacant property on the left hand side is the um subject property and then there's these apartment complexes on on either side and across the street are their more traditional um single family dwellings that you see in in the Wells Avenue neighborhood. And um here's the street elevation. Um and it generally meets um park uh code requirements from an architectural standpoint. Um and uh yeah, it meets it meets the code requirements for this area. As far as transit facilities, um RTC um has proposed bike lane improvements along Hulcom Avenue and Wells Avenue in association with their neighborhood um network program. uh two bus routes are located within a quarter mile of this site, including one of those being a bus rapid transit um stop on Center Street and generally there's complete sidewalks on both sides um of Taylor Street between Hulcom and Weld Avenue. So generally I think RTC's improvements are looking at changing people's relationship with transit and um that supports from staff's perspective um this deviation. Um this is a major deviation. So this is different from a variant. So the findings are different and staff was able to meet these findings with the uh uh with the relationship to the the master plan the competing policy of housing over parking um and uh that it's within a multimodal corridor um that um where housing I think would provide a greater public benefit. And on the screen is the recommended motion. Um, and this applicant is available or will be uh giving a presentation. All right. Thank you. Could have um is this going to be access to our presentation? Yes. So they'll put it on the screen and then you can switch flip through the slides with us. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. I know it's late and we'll try to be brief. My name is Greg Evangelos. I'm a professional city planner. I live at 1365 Hilltop Road here in Reno and I'm representing the apartments. Uh I think that um Carter did a wonderful job in terms of the overview and I think the uh the issues of the balance between uh providing housing uh the missing middle and trying to address some of these uh public needs, balancing it with the parking demand which is uh legitimate but also taking into consideration the fact that people's habits are changing and that uh Many communities across this country are rethinking the amount of mandatory parking. Donald Shupe and the high cost of free parking is has advocated since 2005 that we re-examine how much parking we provide and the impacts that it has uh both on the infrastructure as well as uh uh development in general. Um I'm going to do some slides. Okay. Little further down. Oh sorry. This is kind of a a west elevation view. You can see that the architecture is is is fairly well articulated. Uh again, it's infill and so we're trying to to match the surroundings as best as possible. Uh the property is vacant so there's no displacement uh relative to any existing residents or any historic buildings on the site. U again this is an aerial view of of the lot. It's midblock another and I guess you know the issue with the weeds and uh there could be some fire issues in it current condition and developing it I think would would uh eliminate that certainly. I guess this is the south and west elevations. Uh there's a requirement for uh bicycles. So we're going to have at least seven uh bicycle spaces. And again, back to the issue of the diversity of housing. We have younger people now and and seniors like myself that don't want to drive anymore. uh either because of the affordability issue, but also uh in terms of using public transit, walking, and the Wells neighborhood and the Midtown neighborhood are in close proximity. So, there's a lot of services available uh to the residents more elevations. Uh this is the internal and you can see the parking to the back. Again, the the units face to the front. uh new new urbanist uh characteristics in terms of you know having not having uh um vehicles in front which you had that earlier discussion uh in in the other neighborhood uh public transit corridors there's two of them obviously you have wells and you have uh the the center uh Virginia Street corridor as well and then we actually did receive a a letter in support. Uh, and that this was I think at the neighborhood meeting. And that concludes my my my presentation as far as um the uh slideshow. I just would uh indicate that this uh is an asset. Uh we're in conformance with the conditions. We'll we agree to the conditions of approval. We see the findings. In fact, I think um the master plan policies relative to providing affordable housing and so I'm available for any questions and we appreciate the good work of your staff and your receptivity this evening. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we have received a public comment card. Uh Chris Sanino, would you like to come up? Yeah. Good evening. I'm uh Chris San Severino. Uh 316 East Tal Street. Uh that's one of the single family houses that you see across from the property. Uh I live like right across but just a little bit of an angle on there. Uh just want you guys if you don't know is there's already four apartment complexes on both sides of Taylor between Wheeler and Wells Avenue. two on the side where the proposed is and two on on my side of the street. Uh I feel that the new complex should adhere to providing nine parking spaces. I don't see excuse me I don't see any reason that that should be deviated upon. I mean we have four apartment complexes uh and people do have more than one car. Parking spaces on the street, they're not abundant. If you want to park on the street, uh it's not like you got plenty of spaces to park. And this is during the week. Uh weekend parking is very tight. Uh Saturday and Sunday, uh it's really hard to find a space and you probably got to park uh approximately a block away. uh you know, we we've seen certain people, they have trucks, they have cars, and they're parking them on the street, and they're from these complexes, and they're just clogging everything up. Uh we would like the developer to adhere to providing the required nine parking spaces in consideration of the quality of life for the present homeowners on the block. We think that the homeowners deserve respect. We think that they deserve parking for themselves and, you know, any visitors or neighbors that they should be able to find a space. Uh, I'm sure this would still work, you know, both for the developer and for us. uh you know I don't see any emergency or any requirements what that should say that okay we we we need uh well not much time you know that that would require them to have the seven spaces instead of the nine which is what's supposed to be thank you very much thank you do we have any other public comment we did receive correspondence that was forwarded to the planning commission and has been entered into the record. We did not receive any more um request to speak forms and no one is available on Zoom to speak on this item. Okay, very good. We'll close public comment and go to disclosures starting with to the right. Uh read uh emails in opposition and uh reviewed materials and commissioner Williams also read emails and uh the material provided. [Music] Commissioner Roire familiar with the site and read received emails and the staff report. Commissioner Villanova, read emails and review the staff report. Commissioner DeviR, read email, staff report, and am familiar with the site. Commissioner Bera, uh, read and reviewed and provided materials. I'm very familiar with the site. Um, that is it. All right. Do we have any questions for staff or the applicant? I have a question, Commissioner Bera, for the record, maybe for Carter. Um, let's see. Try to draft it up. What irreparable harm would be created to both either the applicant or the neighborhood if we required them to stick with the 1.25 vehicles per unit um policy from the days of old as opposed to reducing it to a 1:1. So Carter Williams, associate planner for the record. I think um staff's perspective on this is that this is an urbanized neighborhood. So um I think this is a challenge that our community may face as we increase housing generally. Um so if we're talking about I I think the wording is stripping me up irreparable harm. I don't believe that there is anything person like from what I feel for the public and that's how we're able to make that finding. Okay. Um I I cannot speak necessarily for the applicants perspective. If they wanted if you wanted to ask the same question to them, that's fine. Um it's okay. I I'm just trying to sort this out because we I think as uh Chair Roar mentioned in a prior uh line item that kind of dubtales into this one. You know, we're trying to balance out current trends and needs of the of our community and its needs with policies within a district or a neighborhood that were created decades ago and trying to honor those, but trying to reconcile those two at the same time. And it see for me, for one, it seems like a good thing as presented to to reduce the number of vehicles because there are other modes of transportation or multimodal community. Uh, so maybe I thought I was missing something. Um, but you've answered it. So, thank you, Carter. Along those lines, what what would the parking requirement be without the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan? What would be the minimum or maximum? It would be a one one. So, seven spaces. So, seven spaces, which is what they're providing with the on street parking. And just could you run me through? So, that's with Oh, sorry. All right. Sorry. How much is a minor deviation fee at the city of Reno? Um, it's between 5 and 700. Is that I I'll look up the fee schedule. Okay. I'm just curious. You know, it it seems to me that again, we're looking at a plan that is 30 years old, should have been sunsetted, and now it's costing time and money in a public hearing for an item that would be non-issue. because as you said now this is the most restrictive parking in all of the all of Reno. So could you just you know let me know how long the applicant has been at this and um I I only came into the discussion when we with it like within the last two months I don't know that might be how long would madam chair for the record the filing fee is $3,300 to the city of Reno and $170 to the northern Nevada district health. Okay. Thank you. The applicants reporting four months um in this four months of time and $3,000. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Jockman. Yeah, I I think this is a very it's a generally small project that touches on a number of issues that are prevalent in our community. And so as a traffic engineer, you know, with Commissioner Roer as a planner on the commission, we've got competing plans and then we've got competing parking policies in place. And it's even confusing for me at times to identify which one is the most appropriate. I was surprised to hear that this was a major dev major deviation. Those words sound a bit abrasive um given the uh fact that if you are under level two parking that you would be compliant with the code and wouldn't have to go through this process. I can be sensitive to the fact that um parking is difficult when we're trying to create and clearly with the density bonus uh that has been put forth. You know, we're as a city trying to take an initiative and and push development in a certain way. Um and so it's it's it's um frustrating might be the word. It's it's it's tough to see that. Okay, now applicants have to go through other loopholes to get to achieving what we're we're trying to signal as a city. That's more of a comment, not a not an not a question, but um yeah, I'll leave it at that. Um Commissioner Delvr, can you help me understand? Well, one thing is so there's they're trying to do seven spaces, five of which would be onsite and two are reserved offsite. So the the um and this this is citywide. Um and there there's a there's actually a unique case with Wills Avenue. Um we we require a certain parking requirement. A percentage of those parking um can be credited for um on street parking. that's available adjacent to their site. So, it doesn't mean that they're yet reserved. It just shows that there it's it's again moving in that direction that we acknowledge that street parking is relevant in this conversation and and um the city council has made a policy decision to say, okay, this is the parking requirement and we're this is the available street parking that's shared. Um so, the current requirement is 33% but actually in Wells Avenue, the Wells Avenue neighborhood plan, it's 50% of the it can be substituted. They just don't have the distance on street. Got it. Because I noticed the I don't know maybe two doors down there was a place and they actually had signs on it that said these spaces are reserved and I was like I don't I don't think that's actually correct. But it actually is there are legal signs um that was it was a way that the city was um trying to address parking availability um within certain neighborhood parked there when I was checking out the site. But it it um those those that's not common practice now to do that. Um and the city actually is a re-evaluating citywide its parking program um to to address some of these concerns that that are coming from the public. And then there's like literally no way to put more parking on that in that space. I I think that with the narrowness of the site, it would be very challenging and it would it could cost units. Got it. And yeah, I mean for me and I guess maybe this is discussion, so I'll save it for discussion. I'm I'm good with questions. Sure. I do have one question. I I don't know this myself. So, um obviously there's seven units that will be occupied by tenants. Um given the smaller size, we have these ADA requirements that are rigid and um there is the possibility that none of the tenants will have an ADA requirement. Um, is is there any flexibility within the code if if if those are all occupied to alleviate some of that cuz then obviously one of them is going to be an ADA stall and I don't know the answer to this. You see what I'm getting at? I mean, I actually may not be understanding. So, so ADA stalls are mandated through through the American with Disabilities Act. There's there's no way to avoid ADA requirements. Um, and the way that we have to look at it from the city is yeah, you may all the tenants may not have a need for that, but there could be a need in the future. So that they there we can't wave ADA requirements. Sure. But then in terms of the enforcement side of it, could that space be used by a nonADA tenant if it's shown that there is no ADA need on the site? Because that will get at alleviating the ADA concerns. I I will say just in in in real in real world practice, it's extremely hard to enforce unless unless and this is not a question at getting to the findings, but I guess if if staff can take a look at that and and offering the applicant some flexibility if it's if it's legally allowed going forward, um that's something to be open to so that that space can of course always be used by anyone who is in need for ADA. uh reasons, but then if there is no one within the space because that that parking space could then go towards one of the tenants. I think that's a good inquiry that I think we can pursue. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Villanoa. Um with regard to the changing urban area and infill and our need for housing, I generally agree with um Commissioner Roire. Um I do have some questions though because generally I agree. Um, but with regard to some of these older neighborhoods, there's not always walkability. Um, there's not always sidewalks or, you know, because I I I may walk more than I cycle or, you know, there's various ways of getting around in this particular area. What's the you is the applicant going to provide for sidewalks? Because I see this letter from RTC and they're saying, you know, obviously there's other forms of transit. Um, but it does uh suggest that there be sidewalks. Is that something that exists here? There is an existing sidewalk there and in fact all all along Taylor Street there is it's actually Wells Avenue is probably one of kind of a it's a nice neighborhood that has pretty complete streets throughout. There are some exemptions exceptions to that but in any case with the with development they have to put in the sidewalk if it wasn't there. Okay, too. So Okay. So that's but it is in this case. Okay. And the reason I ask is again for safety because generally speaking, yes, I agree that uh we do want to allow for more urban and infill and urban infill. And um the other question I had is it was to Commissioner Delviar's touching on Commissioner my brain is just not working. Commissioner Delviar's point earlier the So there's five spaces. Two of the there's seven spaces, but two of those are on the sidewalk or I can't think are on the street. Yeah. But you could effectively think about that that this that the city requirement is being accredited to some extent because we recognize that they're like they have some entitlement to two spaces even though they're not marked off. It's a part of the shared Okay. Got it. Um shared require or offering. Okay. And so this would be what? So what is the requirement? And then this is just so what the applicant has front of us is basically five spots, two on the sidewalk, but what is the requirement? It's is it seven spots on site? So So it's it's um the the requirement would be um sorry. Yes. Seven on site and to and with this to be reduced to five on site. Seven on site. Okay. Got it. Um, okay, perfect. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion? Uh, one more question for um Carter. Um, do you know why it's 1.25 from the days of old and why that's still applicable today? I I I do not know the con like why that um was selected necessarily. I mean, it was intended to be less intense because it was acknowledging the urban framework of that neighborhood. Um, so the scale is it's a onebedroom per one uh space, two bedroom per 1.25 Uhhuh. and threebedroom or more 1.5 or 1.75. Okay. And then there was other other standards like one per nine uh units for guest parking. Like so those things were considered. Just some funny math. Yeah. Okay. I think this kind of goes maybe as a transition into discussion if the body wants to indulge it, but kind of goes back to my point in a earlier uh matter about like really understanding the why we make these decisions and documenting those so we understand to help our future selves or our future generations as to why these decisions were made and why maybe they deserve to be re-evaluated and maybe updated. I actually have a question. Would the city have considered a parking justification letter in place of this minor deviation in the future? Maybe that could be a opportunity for this neighborhood. It could. Yeah, it could be. I think I don't know but Mike would have to probably weigh into that if it I think based on precedent of other projects that have come forward this this there this is the avenue to in this case and I would actually to actually I would agree with that because of the previous case we're talking about the relationship we have with these neighborhood plans the reason why staff is supportive of this so much is because of the competing priorities and with housing um if they weren't necessarily providing that and just asking for a reduction I don't think that staff or we wouldn't we would get there. So, um we would we wouldn't I don't know if we would get there. I have sorry I just have just one more quick question. Is the 72-hour time limit on streets is that applicable to all of Reno or Okay. Yes, it is. Just want to make sure there's no weird things in this area, too. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other discussion? Uh discussion or questions or Sorry, I have discussion. Yeah. Okay. Are we ready for discussion? All right. Looks Go ahead. I just want to first of all thank the um com public commenter. I understand you live in the neighborhood and this has been a long meeting. I appreciate you sticking around because it's a it's a long meeting and it's obviously important to you to be here um because this is your community. Um, I just want to share why I'm going to support this. Um, because I understand in these older communities it is when there's not a lot of parking it can be very frustrating and I don't want you to take this as just us not taking what you have to share with us um in listening and hearing your perspective. I think I just want to share with you why I'm ch why I'm going to choose to say yes to this project and mainly it is because of those competing priorities. Um it seems that in the case like this we have the um the priorities of housing um priority priority of infill um multi-mobility um and just really want to encouraging encourage um other forms of transportation. So those are the reasons um that in my mind outweigh um opposing this um and that's why I'm going to support this. Um, but I do appreciate you coming out and it's not to say that you what you had to say wasn't important because it is. Um, Commissioner Delvr, I'm I'm still kind of on the fence. Um, one of my concerns is and and I agree with what everybody's saying. Um, but my cons my concern is like this kind of sets precedent so that the next person that wants to develop an apartment complex in the Wells area neighborhood uh I just and so maybe it's a bigger issue that we we we discuss like how how do we deal with this? Like how do we deal with parking? It does it need to be 1.25. Um so so that's just really my concern is again sort of that balance and um and making sure that we are staying compliant but again trying to move move Reno forward the way that is envisioned in the master plan. So I'm a little on the fence still. Yeah. Good. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I mean, this sort of an issue is right at the crux of it's a chicken or egg situation where if we bring the if we bring the density into places like this, you'll see more demand for the businesses around there. You'll get a more vibrant urban neighborhood. And it's always to the detriment of parking. And parking is a it's a such an important single overarching thing in development that causes people to earmark a certain amount of land to make a development occur. it it's it's way more powerful than anyone thinks just the the parking code in and of itself. And so the city's made the density bonus uh you know a priority of sorts and that is bringing us into conflict with the major deviation parking requirements and we've got to weigh these what do we want to see going forward for the city. I you know as planning commissioners it's in my opinion it's our job to carry out what those um goals and policies have been the density bonus is in place and this is what the applicant needs to get to the finish line in terms of because because they are following the goals of the city in that in that regard with this application is how I view it. Is it to the detriment of parking? Sure. But this is just one piece of the pie piece of the puzzle. Thank you, Commissioner Basser. For the record, I agree with what uh Vice Chair Villan mentioned and commissioner uh Jac me mentioned as well. Share those wholeheartedly. And going back to chair romire's maybe comment that I think um it would be great to find a way um to ensure that other folks other developers wanting to to you know address the uh missing middle to not have to spend so much time and money uh to to arrive at the same solution but at the same time not you know uh curtail or bypass uh public input uh but maybe use this as a um use case to to kind of fine-tune and remove some of that friction that seemingly exists for um developers. Um and for now, I mean, I I can make all the findings, but I just wanted to share that uh feedback um not just for our body, but for the staff and the general public that's tuning in. Uh I'll just say I mean uh overall I'm I'm a no on this. Um I think the the actual reality is going to be that um there is going to be a minimum of seven vehicles but probably between 10 to 14 in this place and that's just from what I see from being in a major development uh which sells and and rents these types of places. Uh if you look on Google Maps to the adjoining property right next to it, there's no less than nine or 10 cars that are shoved at the apartment complex right next door to it, plus the street parking. I honestly don't even believe we should be giving credit for the street because that street is particularly crowded already. I mean, you know, it's one thing to provide. I understand the housing push, but it there comes to a point where we do so much the the standards of living come down because if you're a resident there and can never find parking at night, um, which I've dealt with also, it it's it's it's a big life thing. Parking is is a big real thing that happens in in some of these denser areas. So, um, I I just I think it's just I think it's bad. Um, but it's it's a good thing, but I think the parking thing is is off. So, Commissioner, can I add Oh, sorry. Oh, I'll go less. Oh, I Okay. Thank you, chair. Um, mine is more of of a caveat. Uh, I guess I just want to distinguish my position today from again just because we have all the conversations with ADUs coming up and I just want to distinguish my my decision today. I do think ADUs are different. I do think we need if we're going to have ADUs, we need to have parking available for that because those are going to, you know, depending on the ordinance, we're going to have those in every, you know, potentially in multiple people's single family homes. And so, just because I may vote today, uh, to approve this, uh, that does not necessarily mean that I'm going to have that same position with ADU. So, thank you and thank you, chair, for letting us all go before you. Thanks. Um, no. I just want to say I think the best urban places any city, best urban corridors are the ones that are designed without parking. Hands down. You want something walkable, bikable, busible, transit, you name it. It's not about parking. Wells Avenue has that potential and it's being pulled down by the anchor that is that neighborhood plan. So, you have my full support. Um, and uh, I I really hope the city can get behind looking at these things that are 30 years old that are totally keeping us from being able to move forward to our goals. So, um, with that, I'll take a motion or I'll make the motion uh, based on compliance with the applicable findings. I move to approve the major deviation subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Oh, go ahead. Commissioner Jockman second. All in favor? I I I Good luck with your project. Amma Oh, sorry. Not unanimous, but good luck with your project. Did we have the LDC number in there, too, or Cuz you got me on that one. Oh, I will. Any final action not including recommendations or failures to take action by the planning commission may be appealed to the city city council by the applicant, the mayor or the city council member or any person who is agrieved by the action or inaction. An appeal together with the fees must be filed with city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice the action is filed with the city clerk. So thank you. Um, that concludes our development items and now we'll go to updates. Truckucky Meadows planning liaison report. Um, Christina, I know we have not yet officially brought you as our got a great report. No, I'm kidding. I believe Commissioner Bera attended in person. I attended online. Do you mind giving an update? Uh, not at all, Chair. Pretty brief. Um, let's see. We nothing that would trickle back down for action on our part, but uh we did just review a few matters that um it seemed like the body, the regional planning commission uh seem to all get behind. Um nothing contentious, prettyformational. Um I think at the next meeting would have something more uh substantive to report. Thank you. All right, moving to staff announcements. Mike, I will try to be as brief as possible given the time. Um, since we have not met in a month, I going all the way back to April 9th, the council heard two appeals, as you will will recall, the J Resort Festival Grounds and the OneUp Commercial Row Live Entertainment CUP. um they upheld your approval of the festival grounds and denied the uh cup for the extended hours associated with the oneup bar. Um then on the 23rd, uh council did initiate a text amendment for ADUs. Um however, they've also provided direction to consider short-term rentals as part of that. So, um, Lauren and and, uh, Grace and Angela and their team are working on that now, and that will be coming back forward to the planning commission for input. Are they considering parking? That will be part of that that Yes. Um, they also did uphold your recommend, your approval for the Arlington office master plan amendment and zone change as well as the Worster Corbett zone change that was, I believe, at your last meeting that before the cancelceled one. Um last night, as most of you know, uh the council went quite late. Um however, they did approve the ranchera PUB amendment. Um and unfortunately, the RPC appointment item got continued along with several other items. So that will be on their next agenda. Um, can I uh so for clarification for the ranchera because one of the things that we had talked about was would the developers be willing to give up like one or two home spaces for more green space and I believe that that is what they agreed to that did they went from uh 29 units which was what was presented um to the planning commission and ultimately were approved at 24 um and then the stonegate master plan amendment and zone change will be at council on the 21st of Okay, that's all I have. Um I know um we've got commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. Um there have been a couple. There's been a request that's I didn't turn the page. Um just given the length of tonight's meeting, obviously we had those trainings that we had planned and based on very hefty agendas, I anticipate that we'll start again at our next meeting. I would like to see Nick Chicone come and talk to us about SB48. Well, speaking of that, I wasn't sure. Oh, good. I sorry. I was just going to say I would actually like it if we can put the actual applicant information on the motion slide because we keep forgetting to say what it is that we're the LDC number. LC, they they don't always say on a motion. We'll make sure that that's consistent for for some reason tonight it was like it was not on there. Thank you. She had to assist me like Scotty Pippen back in the day like a couple times. Um since we're in basketball analogies tonight. Um, and I I I guess I would just elaborate on uh Chair Roier's uh side request, I guess, there just for uh edification that uh it would be great to have a presentation from the city of Reno to get more context on and the motivation behind SB48 and how it impacts this body and our independence. Um, and I do have a general public comment once we're there. Any other suggestions? Okay. Uh we will go to public comment. This is for any item either on the agenda or general public comment. It sounds like Commissioner Bisera. Yes. Uh just a quick one since um uh heard from a lot of folks um general community uh about the hiatus for I guess NABS and other boards and commissions. And just wanted to remind anyone out there in the Ethernet uh that uh or the interwebs that um if it's design you know anything that would have rolled up from NAB to planning commission would implore you to go ahead and submit your feedback and thoughts to the planning commission uh feedback mechanism so so we hear what you have to say positive negative or neutral. All right thank you. Seeing no other public comment, I will move uh I'll take a motion to adjurnn. Motion, second. Third. All in favor? Let's go home.