okay great all right thank you for the patience folks appreciate it we will now start our regular meeting of the Reno City Planning Commission today's date is Thursday December 7th item number one Pledge of Allegiance I will proudly lead the way fled Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the rep for it stands Nation God indivisible andice all thank you item number two roll call Michelle please Harris Armstrong here Manny bacera here Arthur Munos is absent Carrie rer here Alex fto is here Sylvia villan NOA here and JD draulic here we have a quorum great thank you all right moving on item number three public comment this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment Michelle I have one request to speak form is that for a specific item or is that for this public comment the request to speak form that you received is for public hearing item okay number 5.1 okay saber for then any other requests to speak forms let me read this real quick pleas okay sorry members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the zoom link provided on the agenda specifically https colon links. reno.gov planning1 12-7 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 3 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 agendized for possible action on today's agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded 3 minutes if you are an attendee in the zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time please raise your hand lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues with that um we did receive correspondence um that was General in nature it didn't pertain to anything on the agenda um that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and has been entered as part of the record no voicemails uh were received um I did not receive any request to speak forms and I do have somebody on Zoom that wishes to speak I think Patricia West thank you yeah this is Patricia West hi you have three minutes to make public comment I just wanted to introduce myself I'm patri West with the children's cabinet I go by Patty West um I just wanted to let you know that I am just here to learn about planning um committees on the planning and how it runs because I am um helping business um and supporting them um that are interested in um having an on-site child care which right now in the state of Nevada Child Care is a need uh for all businesses and so I am supporting them so that they can be able to have an onsite um child care for their employees so I'm just here to learn about how the planning committee works as I'm going to be supporting them um working with Architects planning zoning and all of that so just wanted to introduce myself so thank you thank you you I think that's it for public comment thank you all right anybody else in the chambers wish to speak on General Public comment please let us know if not you will have your chance for specific items seeing none at the moment we will close item three public comment move to item number four approval of minutes item 4.1 Reno City Planning commissioner regular meeting of November 1 Commissioners any concerns or looking for a motion I move to commission sorry about that commissioner so we have a motion by commissioner RoR Meer commissioner VTO feel free to second I would love to Second all right we have a motion in a second uh looking for approval all in favor I I I any oppos seeing none minutes approved now moving on item 4.2 Reno City Planning Commission regular meeting of November 16th commissioner villain we have a motion to approve all right we have a motion commissioner second all right Motion in a second all in favor I I any opposed seeing none minutes approved thank you now moving on to item number five public hearings any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a public hearing is heard will need to so indicate on the request to speak form provided to the secretary alternatively you may provide your comment when item three public comment is heard at the beginning of this meeting we will open it up with item 5.1 case number lc24 d18 Souther southernland family fence and will we get a presentation from the applicant oh great thank you so do I have control I do okay hi uh my name is Carrie Sutherland and I'm the property owner together with my husband John of 843 Marsh Avenue and I'm here to give you a little bit more background about a fence that we're trying to build in our front yard and there we go okay um my husband and I purchased our property on New Year's Eve 2016 s years ago almost U we grew up in Reno and always went to unar and when we got married dreamed to live in the old Southwest and so this was definitely like the dream home purchase for us um in many ways because the house has a really distinct and unique history um since the 1940 s we purchased the home from the Catholic dases of Reno um since the 1940s it was purchased originally from Bishop Gorman the namesake of the High School in Las Vegas and since 1947 has served as The Bishop's residents for the dases of Reno which was just Statewide so it was the Northern Nevada residence for the bishop until the 80s and then the 80s was when the dasis of Reena was established and it became the permanent resident for the local Bishop so one single man has lived in this home since 1947 um the home has a chapel we have a statue of the saint of saints in our backyard we have a lot of historical and really important history that um has been really important to me when it comes to renovating the house so six years ago I started renovating my house and it's taken a really long time because I have put so much time and energy into Renovations that honor the character and the history of the house my goal has been to lift it into this Century um but making changes to it that feel like they were always a part of it um and I think it's important to share some of this background just because I want everyone to understand that it would never be my intention to do anything that would be out of character or you know just completely like left left turn from what the house really is um so I provided some examples like the photo on the left is actually the chapel which has been renovated for our breakfast room um I had a church Furniture maker in North Carolina make the alter chairs the the kitchen cabinets in the photo of the right are designed after like Cathedral windows I just think I want to I wanted to include this to illustrate the point that I've been really careful and intentional about these choices um and my fence project is no different um I think most people that know about Marsh Avenue that it's a really busy street we welcome 3,000 trick-or-treaters on Halloween like probably more if I didn't run out of Candy by 8:00 um and it's a busy street in the old Southwest it's kind of a cut through Street and we'd like to have a fence we want to have a fence to secure our property to let the kids play basketball in the front yard the front yard is a significant portion of our entire property and we just we'd like to use it and I think having a fence would provide the safety and security that we want um but also be an architectural addition an enhancement that makes our home better that makes our street better um and I think the whole neighborhood so there are several tall fences throughout the old Southwest that go over this 4 foot maximum that the city has um but there are a few reasons why we specifically need it to go over 4T so just a little bit more about the design inspiration behind it the photo the large photo of the fence is the inspiration photo I found that um inspired my fence design um the curves that you'll see on my fence design are all really consistent with the architectural curves of the original house um I like the idea of it's called a brick void pattern of it being see-through the fence will be made out of brick it will it's inspired by that image it's not exactly that which you'll see but um I wanted it to have some visibility it's not my intention to have a fortress wall so no one can see me or my house or my family again and I can't see out either um to honor the history and the character of our house I have a cross pattern which is our brick void pattern so the majority of the fence which is over 50 fet in the center is a brick void pattern which is a cross which is going to be subtle but also if you know you know and it's I think a nice touch so there's multiple pictures of my fence that you're going to see so first if you just like take in the full view if you're looking at my fence from the middle of the street this is what you're going to see the fence posts obviously on the ends like any fence are the tallest point the actual fence itself at its highest point is 5'4 it slopes it curves it goes down to 3.6 you see the openings I have a U-shaped driveway which you may have noticed in the first picture and it's that Center section that features the brick Vo void pattern in that upper third of the design so just to give you a closer look um you can see I kind of pulled out just a the leftand portion of the whole fence so like I said the posts are 6' 7 and a half to be the exact height of my husband because it's custom and I can make it whatever I want and then it goes down to 54 it's 4 foot 10 slopes down to 36 and then goes back to the post on either end of my opening and my driveway the the majority of that fence is the 51 Plus Foot Center section and that's where uh the brick void pattern is so there the some of the negative comments from the public I think are it's a solid structure maybe this ugly cinder block wall that's six feet tall I won't be able to see your more your beautiful house again I'm just quoting some of the letters um it's 4' 10 so long as you're taller than 4 foot 10 I promise you'll see my house um or Peak through the the holes this is a scale rendering of my house with the fence layered in front of it the reason for the 4 foot 10 height of the majority of fence is so that it most closely aligns with the foundation of my house so when you enter from Marsh Avenue to go up to my garage the elevation change is 5 feet so it is a significant like it's an uphill drag and that's why 4ot 10 actually lines up with the bottom of my house so that's why I'm requesting the approval for a deviation I think anything smaller than 4 fo1 would not be architecturally correct and it's just not my intention to build something that isn't right um some more visuals just to illustrate I mean I don't know if anyone's driven down Marsh Avenue in notice but we've had this dirt plot in our front yard for two years while we've been planning this fence um the Yellow Tape represents the intent the location of where the fence will go um you can see my SUV fits like cleanly between the street and the proposed fence I'm a mom I have two kids a 13-year-old and a seven-year-old and I'm not trying to create any sort of visual or safety issue um and that's also why I added the brick void pattern too just to increase visibility but my full car fits between the fence and the street um I mean if you really want want to know my intention is to landscape in front of the fence and also to landscape behind it so it's an 8ft wide Gap with the fence running through the middle um our sidewalk on the larger photo to my right it's harder to see but our sidewalk is actually very rarely used because it's incomplete it actually just dead ends into a six- foot fence of my neighbor's property um so it's not a continued sidewalk um but I think that it's important just to point out in terms of pedestrians it's it's not really very it's not often used most people that walk down Marsh Avenue walk on the street so I think approving this major deviation improves the Safety and Security of our private property it will absolutely enhance the visual appearance of the built environment and an attractive streetscape um I think it ensures visual compatibility with public spaces and nearby architecture and it promotes Street and neighborhood character um I really appreciate your consideration and I really app appreciate John my neighbor that's come to speak in support and all the neighbors that send letters and support and definitely Jeff because he's helped me um tremendously understand like what I'm even supposed to do to get to this point so I'm happy to be here and I'm happy to answer any questions you have about my fence thank you we'll get a presentation from the staff and then we'll we'll have a chance to ask you questions thank you all right we will take a presentation from City of Reno hi Jeff hello hello all right uh Jeff Foster associate planner for the record uh tonight bringing you two cases the first of which is LDC 2418 which is the Southerland family fence the project uh site is approximately 64 Acres it is a single family home uh to the east of Reno High School on Marsh Avenue and the request before you tonight is a major deviation to increase the allowable front yard fence from 4ot to 6 feet from 4T to 6 feet which is a 50% increase as Allowed by code under a major deviation the key issues that we have are compatibility with surrounding land uses as well as Public Safety uh to point out uh the home there obviously in the yellow and surrounded on all sides by single family residential uses as well the zoning district is single family 5 and the master plan is single family neighborhood and here are a few goals and policies that the project is in compliance with and we can discuss those later if you would like so the proposed design is as Carrie indicated the home uh was built in 1946 and owned by the Catholic dicese uh it is located in the Newlands historic district and is listed as a contributing property on the national register of historic places registration form I did want to point out that this designation is honorary and does not change any property rights and nor does it add restrictions for owners who may want to make changes to the property within the district so acknowledging that it is in the Newlands District that doesn't convey any additional restrictions as to what the applicant can do the wall that is proposed is a varies in height between 3' 6 in and 5'4 with columns at 6' 7 a half as Carri indicated uh with the brick void pattern that provides visibility and connects to the historical significance of the property I did want to point out that per code uh fence posts May extend up to 2 feet higher than the fences itself as long as the posts are at least 6 feet apart and that's why they can extend higher than the 6 feet as indicated there also I think I think it's worth pointing out that the majority of the wall is actually only 4 foot 10 as Carrie indicated the the long stretch in the middle is 4 foot 10 as well as some portions on the side on either side so we're not talking about a significant height differential above and beyond what is already Allowed by code in a front yard um and then the height is due to the slope and topography of the property um the applicant has indicated that building a 4ot uh fence or wall would not provide the desired safety that they that they desire and the security that they desire and also it would not proportionally fit with the design scale and slope of the property I do have another slide should you want to see what the smaller wall could look like in relation to the property I mean I think you would agree that it doesn't match the the the scale and scope of the property based on the topography and the slope um as currently designed the applicant is proposing a wall that exceeds the standard 4 feet by another 1T 4 in which is a 33% deviation of course you as the Planning Commission May approve up to a 50% deviation as we've already talked about and to reserve the potential to build the wall taller than 5'4 the applicant is requesting the full 50% deviation when the applicant applied um they did not understand that um that that they couldn't apply for anything less than a 50% deviation as again as as we point out the the the um maximum height is really only a 33% deviation so that's what was noticed anyway in terms of the full 50% okay as far as compatibility with surrounding land uses goes there are several nearby examples of front yard fences and walls taller than 4T um on the picture here you can see six um yellow pins that indicate at least um some examples that are in the in the vicinity of fences and walls in front yards that are taller than 4 feet and the applicant's home is where the orange Dot and blue box are there um here are photos of some of these fences and walls um no doubt if you've traveled down California you will recognize the one on the bottom um the one in the upper left corner is actually diagonal across from the applicant's home on Marsh Avenue with a wall taller than than 4T uh right in the front yard um again continuing with compatibility with surrounding land uses since the property slopes up from the street the top of the wall is at approximately the same level as the grade at the front of the house as the applicant indicated and the the proposed wall would not be blocking the view of the house um and instead of a location on the property line the wall is set back from the sidewalk as the applicant indicated with the yellow tape on the photos there um therefore that wall would that fence and wall would not create a corridor alley effect um because of the setback there are several neighbors that are in support the little picture here to the left um the six orange pins represent the neighbors who have submitted letters of support that are in the staff report um and as far as we can kind routinely condition allowable days and hours of construction when there are sensitive land uses adjacent uh and that's why we included condition number five regarding allowable days and hours of construction regarding Public Safety there were no concerns from RPD or or the Reno Fire District uh the brick void pattern does provide some visibility um Marsh Avenue is in this location a a uh a straight Street um and with the proposed wall set back 18 ft from the street and from the sidewalk there is sufficient room for a fulllength vehicle to fit between the wall and the street as shown in the photo um we did condition that uh to to require the wall to be set back that far so that we wouldn't have uh visibility or sight triangle uh issues um with a wall closer to the street um and there are missing and outof compliance sidewalk panels on both sides of the driveway entrance which present a safety hazard respecting that the existing sidewalk does dead end in a fence staff is has conditioned or suggesting a condition uh that requ require the missing and uh uh out of repair uh sidewalk panels to be replaced here are the major deviation recommended findings I do want to take a second to run through these I don't normally do this but just because um I think it's critical in this particular application to to look at these um in a little closer detail the the proposed wall would not create a site distance or Vision triangle issue for any properties any neighboring proper properties um the taller wall would uh will proportionally fit better uh with the scale and slope of the property that's uh finding number two um other taller walls are in the neighborhood and other property owners could uh apply for a similar request so it does not constitute a special privilege finding number three and uh the design does not create any any safety issues due to the design and the location so it will not be materially detrimental to the public health safety or welfare here's the recommended motion staff can make all the findings and recommends approval and I'm available for questions thank you Jeff appreciate it we will now go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Villa will you kick us off commissioner Villa familiar with the area and red emails uh commissioner Armstrong I'm familiar with the area and I read and received emails commissioner berera same disclosures commissioner rer resident of Marsh Avenue outside the notice area and uh read the emails commissioner dracul read and received emails and visited the site all right we will now open it up Toto thank you I forgot about you buddy go I'm sorry no worries thank you thanks same disclosures all right thank you guys all right we will now open it up to public comment uh we do have a request to speak form gentleman by the name of John Hester speaking in favor you have three minutes and please state your name for the record thank you Mr chairman members of the commission first of all I would like to is this on I don't see what's on Michelle oh thanks Michelle um thank you for serving first of all I know this is having been in Mr Ry and other staff members positions for a number of years a number of years ago I know this is a a thankless job and I appreciate it so I hope you didn't start my time yet for that Michelle but anyway um I just want to give you a little bit of uh context I've lived for 25 years in my house on Bret Harden laroo which is around the corner from here 39 years in the neighborhood I was uh financially contributed to creating the historic district that your staff member talked about uh was on your code Committee involved in the ma last Master Plan update where we got the historic designation for this area and uh we met with a number of City department heads to talk about how could we work on enforcement getting the sidewalk system uh extended and uh other things at that point I met my neighbor Carrie she lives about two blocks away and she was very interested in doing what she could for the neighborhood because she knows it's a an asset to the city uh we both have historic Reno preservation Society tours come by our homes um art town events in the neighborhood every year and uh as she mentioned 3,000 trick-or-treaters I talked to her neighbor a couple houses down and she said 4,000 so maybe she just bought more candy I don't know but anyway um some of the things Carrie was very interested in and mentioned to me a few years ago was maintaining the tree canopy the character of the neighborhood safety on Marsh Street improving the sidewalk system the kids that go to school at Reno High uh so some of those things so I've known Carrie since then and know she really cares about the neighborhood so with that as context uh what I'd like to do is explain to you why I am suggesting why I'm in support of this and why I recommend your approval so you have you have a copy of my handout but and this is some of this is the same things that Jeff showed but these are walls in the neighborhood that are over six feet the one on the left side of this photo is almost directly across the street from car's house this these are pictures of vegetative screening uh which doesn't really have to come to the city but the one in the bottom middle is right next door to car's house as you can see the one on the uh right is across the street and the one on the left is down about four or five houses from her so people have created these this vegetative screening without building walls and it isolates to me it isolates their homes more than anything she's proposed we also have very creative neighbors who have used [Music] other get you have that see if I can get that Focus um you have the handout the one in the top left is the wall on a wall can use a retaining wall and then build a a wall on top of that I suppose they could do that at the Southerland because of the topography change but they've chosen not to the one in the bottom middle is uh well we have to get down to four feet at the corner so we'll just put some vegetation in front and then the one on the right is a wall set back from another wall so as you can see uh what they're proposing I think is a lot more compatible with some of the nicer walls in the neighborhood which I've shown on this slide and uh what they're proposing is very much like this so I I know my time's up I think that uh what they're proposing is a is a benefit for the neighborhood and it's compatible and it's a lot better than some of the other things in there and so I recommend you approve it thank you very much appreciate it Michelle any other requests to speak forms voicemails I did not receive any more request to speak forms we did receive correspondence that was forwarded to the Planning Commission uh no voicemails in I don't believe we have anybody on Zoom that wishes to speak for this item okay anybody in the chamber members wish to speak on this item at this moment seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant or staff or move into discussion or a motion I'm happy to make some a few comments if you'd like so I thought that the work was you know the project you put together was very thoughtful and um while sometimes it is unfortunate that our neighbors kind of build walls from one another um I thought you know your efforts to maintain the integrity and the character of the property was well done and um I think you know you're uh I believe you're anticipating putting some uh Shrubbery and other Flor and fauna in the area so I uh I think that's that's going to look really nice so I'm in support of this thank you commissioner vill Anda and I'll Echo those sentiments I mean I I live nearby and I know a lot of these fences are different and everything and what they've done is probably above and beyond what we would expect out of that neighborhood so appreciate the applicant's uh well thought out process and I agree um I'm I drive by your house frequently I would say that that particular stretch of Marsh Avenue is experiencing like a lot of architectural change and some of it is very contemporary some of it is very historic and I think that that's kind of what's interesting about our particular neighborhood so I commend the attention of detail that you're putting into the project great anybody want to make a motion uh chair I'm happy to make a motion there we go uh in the matter of case number LDC 24-18 based upon compliance with the applicable findings uh I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings all right we have a motion second oh commissioner roer with the second any further discussion seeing none all in favor I I any oppose seeing none motion to passes unanimously good luck with your project all right we'll close item number 5.1 move to item 5.2 case number LDC 24010 Our Lady of the Snows Parish Hall looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicant good evening commissioner members uh my name is Greg Ernie I'm the project architect working for Our Lady of Snows on this project uh with me tonight is John catic uh planner and land use and Community planner David Jackman are um traffic consultant and there are some other members of the parish here as well and I believe we we may have one or two people in support of this project uh first of all I would like to uh commend staff for the very thorough presentation and Report they put together I'll try not to be uh duplicative of that but I do want to point out some and highlight some of the things that we think are relevant to the request for here tonight we're here to uh because the height of the building that we're proposing is 35 ft at the very center and it's be the the height is there because it's screening mechanical equipment on the roof and the rest of the buildings essentially is within the planning uh parameters of of the current zoning ordinances our lady in the snow's church is a wellestablished and uh very uh integrative part of the plumis area uh plan in plumis neighborhood the church has been there since 1940 83 years the school has been there since 1950 73 years so as you can see it's it's been a wellestablished member and participant in the neighborhood um I'm not exactly sure uh how I operate this thing but I can try you can use the mouse there we go all right I'm a little technically challenged at times all right this is the site uh as you can see uh the the uh right where the word s is to the top of it is the existing Parish Church to the bottom is the proposed location for The New Parish Hall to the right is the plumis park um and to the left is uh of right street is a current existing parking lot and two residences that are owned by the parish that would be removed to make way for uh uh the work that's associated with this site uh would like to point out as far as the uh uh plumis Park piece uh snow has been a very participatory member of the neighborhood in that they uh funded development of the upper tier of that Parish Park that they uh excuse me the community park that they use as part of the playground uh for for the school so uh snowz is is somebody who wants to be a good neighbor tries to be a good neighbor and uh has been a participatory neighbor in the uh well-being of the neighborhood itself uh this Parish Hall is the culmination of planning that's been going on for almost 20 years uh to get to this point the Parish Hall needs were identified long ago they have evolved over time but this is the current iteration the uh right Street abandonment was a uh happened a few years ago to make way for the ability to uh get rid of the uh parking uh excuse me the uh residences and allow the parking to occur uh the other part that works is that the uh abandonment of right Street and now allows a place for the school and to have a a drop off place outside of the streets on both the North and South Walker and a Monroe so um that Eastern uh double driveway there during drop off and pickup hours be one way north to south and come out the South End towards uh Monroe on the site as as I mentioned earlier is the church The New Parish Hall and the school on the right between the existing church and the Parish Hall is a plaza and that Plaza serves as a place and a Gathering Place For The New Parish Hall it also provides the access point from the parking lot for the drop off area to be able to access the school it's a place where the the children have a safe place to get in and out of their cars and go to school as opposed to dealing with uh the issues that sometimes happen on on the streets on the North and South Side uh on the left side they're next to the residents along Arlington Avenue there will be a concrete uh masonry wall similar to the one that's to the West of the existing parking lot that's there now it will go in the back of all the the uh uh residences and uh in the back of the duplex on the South Side providing that buffer between the parking lot and and those residents and it will be a six foot tall to match what's there now this is a A View From right Street pretty much in the Middle with the nice Reno manhole right in the middle um uh um the uh duplex is on the left and The New Parish Hall will be there on the right half of right street is uh going to be uh become part of the uh duplex property on the left and what you see will be the outlet for the one way coming towards Monroe Street uh during the uh from the parking lot itself The New Parish Hall is basically about where the trees are on the right these are uh some elevations of the exist of the proposed building um the the uh upper elevations are the north at the plaza the uh west elevation is in the middle facing the parking lot and uh then there's a comparative elevation of the existing church and the and the new Parish Center and The New Parish Center just to talk about those elevations a little bit uh it mimics the character of the existing uh par offices which are also a two-story building uh with a hip roof much like this one and the white columns that you see in the elevations uh uh hearken to the elevations of the columns on the north side of the existing church and the exterior of the building is primarily brick well articulated brick with a lot of pattern that respects the patterns of both the church and the existing uh Parish offices uh that's the uh South elevation facing Monroe uh the property slopes from the West to the east the left side is approximately uh 8 feet taller than the alley on the right and then the lower elevation is uh the uh elevation in the alley between the existing Church excuse me The New Parish Center and the school and again block and uh brick are the primary elements there um the new um Center has a Parish Hall in it and it ALS Parish Hall serves both as a gathering place for the parish and also as an exercise gymnasium for the school and what drives the height of the building is the height that is required for a gymnasium gymnasium needs to be 23 feet inside to effectively shoot basketballs um and uh not that my shot uh happens to need that much height I'm pretty flat and not necessarily On Target but uh that's the parameter and then with three fet of structure on top that what that is what drives the perimeter elevation of our building that we'll talk about here in a second um uh other things on the ground floor are offices for the uh for the parish and then there's a chapel in the southwest corner that will be the daytime use be a daytime use for uh uh daytime mass or week weekday mass as opposed to the weekends so so they don't have to worry about uh Heating and Cooling the full Church uh for for weekday masses um the second floor is offices and there are some classrooms there are Dual Purpose classrooms uh the school will use them but they're also there for religious education purposes and other Ministries within within the uh within the church itself I mentioned a second ago uh the the issues of the the elevations on the building when the Heights and things what's driving the perimeter edge of the building the perimeter wall which you see is that 26 feet above finished floor is the height of that gym 23 feet plus 3 feet of structure um we can't put a flat roof on the building that's part of the or part of the ordinance uh um and we need to screen the mechanical equipment which will be on the roof so the elevations have a sloped roof the 5 and 12 pin pitch that's asked that exceeds the minimum required in the uh ordinance to uh bridge between the perimeter of the building and the uh uh mechanical screen parit up on top and then there are some existing little Gables that pop out and the entrances that pop out on the North side to uh provide the delineation and the articulation that's required in in the ordinances and again this is the West El ation and the general theme uh I'm not going to read this for to you uh the building completes the parish master plan as I mentioned earlier uh the two it's a two-story building the existing Parish uh offices is a two-story building with a lower level that's what the new building is two storage plus a lower level that also contains the classrooms and and Storage the existing zoning allows the use of the uh the The New Parish Hall to to exist uh within the existing zoning requirements however that's why we're here tonight because it's required as part of the conditions um and the architectural design uh is consistent respectful respects the integrity and character of the existing buildings on the site and uh and it's a quality building uh with with brick and it is to be a very much a uh contributing I guess asset to the neighborhood itself uh these are the zoning that uh that is part of what is the uh current snows property mf14 and mf13 and then here with as I mentioned earlier uh myself David and John um members of the parish we are uh here to take any questions and we hope you'll concur with PR we fully concur with the staff report and the conditions and uh hope you'll support the parish and recommend that it go forward thank you thank you very much we'll now take a presentation from Jeff of the city of Reena okay Jeff Foster again associate planner for the record uh second case bringing you tonight is LDC 2410 Our Lady of the Snows Parish Hall the project site is approximately 2.74 Acres uh between Walker on the North Monroe on the south Lander and plumis park on the East and Arlington on the west uh currently on the site developed with a church a school two parking lots uh the Parish office and two single family residences all of which would be demolished the requests are a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion of the existing non-conforming uses being the primary school and the religious assembly um as well as the major deviation to vary from the 25 foot maximum height in the plumis neighborhood overlay uh to 35 ft which is a 40% increase the key issues are project design and Code Compliance compatibility with surrounding land uses and parking uh land uses surrounding the site are primarily single family and multif family residential uses to the north uh west and south and then again plumis Park to the east the zoning district is primarily mf14 with portions that are zoned mf30 and PF and again that plumis neighborhood residential uh planning area overlay the master plan is primarily mixed neighborhood with portions that are designated pqp Public quas public and multif family neighborhood MF and here are a handful of goals and policies that the project is in conformance with and again we can explore those later further if you would like the background the church was built in 1940 and the school in 1950 these are non-conforming uses as a conditional use permit is required for religious assembly uses in mf14 and mf30 and a minor conditional use permit is required for primary schools in mf14 there have in several previous entitlements that allowed the the church to expand and the school to expand as well as to abandon portions of Lander and right streets the proposed design is a 31,000 approximately 31,1 15 square foot three level Parish Center uh denoted by the building with the star on it and a courtyard uh south of the church this building will meet setback requirements and incorporates additional setbacks and stepback for compatibility with and to reduce impacts on surrounding residentially zoned properties and that is per code uh the parking lot would be expanding to 78 parking spaces um by expanding the existing parking lot up in the upper left corner to the South uh where the two single family homes would be demolished I did also want to point out that uh the entrance on Walker is a full two-way access Ingress and egress allowing full vehicle turning movements the existing intersection with Monroe would be a one-way southbound only um the traffic impact study that was prepared for the project indicated no uh significant traffic impacts and ongoing pedestrian and bicycle access will continue throughout the site as conditioned by uh condition number five under the Abandonment for right Street um so ongoing pedestrian and vehicle or sorry ongoing pedestrian and bicycle access will be along the sidewalk through the site there uh continuing on with the proposed design again uh the applicants representative talked about the Parish Center with offices classrooms a multi-purpose Parish Hall conference rooms and other functional space this design does comply already with articulation and transparency requirements per code and it also complies with this two-story maximum in the plumis neighborhood overlay um and the the additional uh classroom space would allow the uh School enrollment to increase from approximately 380 to 450 students so an additional 70 students the major deviation um for the height uh at the perimeter walls is 26 ft as the applicant's representative indicated with the interior height of 23 to 24 ft for the multi-purpose room allowing it to be utilized as a gym um so the and the parit wall effectively uh is set back 20 ft from the perimeter of the wall that parit wall will conceal mechanical equipment which is also a code requirement um the plumis neighborhood overlay does require a minimum roof pitch of 4 to 12 the applicants representative indicated a 512 roof pitch is utilized and that will that effectively drives the overall height to 35 ft um again recognizing that the wall itself that you would see standing in front of the building is 26 ft not 35 the 35 is interior um on the top of the building as far as compatibility with surrounding land uses the 35 foot height is is consistently again located approximately 20 ft back from the face of the exterior wall therefore the perceived height uh immediately around the building would be 26 uh the 35 ft height would only be perceived at true elevation or at a significant distance away from the building and shadowing also would not be a problem due to separation distances and orientation in relation to the sun continuing on with compatibility with surrounding land uses uh again this building uh is taller than the church but you can see the church to the left is approximately 30 feet at the peak um which is also similar to the height of the plumis park gymnasium the scale of the proposed building is compatible with these and other buildings uh including the existing School building and there are uh multi-story multif family buildings across Monroe Street uh which are which are uh two stories there uh parking lot lighting and headlights are a potential impact on the surrounding residential land uses the existing parking lot perimeter wall will be extended to the South and the East uh to block any headlights um from affecting those residences the um and in addition condition number five is limiting the allowed height of light fixtures in the parking lot um code allows up to 18 ft in this Zone um we are requesting a condition staff is requesting a condition to limit that uh to no more than uh the minimum practicable height practicable height needed to achieve standard parking lot lighting objectives the applicant has proposed 13 fet and that's what's in the condition of approval no higher than 13 fet which would again in addition to standard code requirements for cut off Optics and whatnot would prevent um light intrusion onto the neighboring residential uses condition number six is included to require an ongoing uh update of the agreement with the city for uh use of plumis Park to offset the wear and tear from The increased usage that would come from the project regarding parking there are urrent currently 120 120 parking spaces including shared spaces on Lander with the proposed uh parking lot expansion on the western portion of the site that would increase to 128 B based on the it rates 95 spaces are required for weekdays and 114 on weekends so there is sufficient parking um and if you go to code requirements um even if you don't count the shared spaces on Lander um the applicant still is providing more than sufficient parking based on what the City of Reno code requires I also wanted to include condition number seven um basically condition number nine for the abandonment of right Street required at least 17 spaces in the parking lot you can see in the picture to be usable by the public um signage uh needs to be updated per the condition to reflect that such that uh the public knows that they can utilize that parking space or utilize that parking lot here are the recommended findings for a conditional use permit and some similar recommended findings for the major deviation staff can make all recommended findings and here's a recommended motion and I'm available for questions thank you Jeff appreciate it we'll now go to the commissioner for disclosure commissioner velto so I don't forget you start it off buddy appreciate it uh so I've uh received and reviewed emails I spoke with the applicants representative I also routinely play basketball with the principal uh of the of the school so I wanted to just say that for the record but I don't believe that affects my impartiality or ability to consider this objectively thank you commissioner roer yes I'm familiar with the site um and I reviewed the correspondence emails commissioner rera um hang on it's a lengthy one um so fellow Commissioners I need to De disclose the fact that I own property that is within the noticing area for this project uh just a block over to be precise on this matter I've sought guidance from the city attorney's office pursuant to NRS 2818 a. 4204a the law presumes that the independence of Judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer situation would not be materially affected by the public officer's significant pecuniary interests where the resulting benefit of detriment occurring to the public officer is not greater than that uring to any other member of any general business profession occupation or group that is affected by the matter we're going here while I have a significant pecuniary interest in my real property the resulting benefit or detriment occurring to me it and my family will not be greater than the occurring to any other member of the general public that owns property in the project area C in regards Weber commissioner opinion number 0947 c 2009 mere ownership of property not sufficient to implicate disclosure requirements the fact that I own property in the project area will will not impact my ability to impartially review and render a decision upon this particular agenda item in light of the forgoing the independence of Judgment of a reasonable person in my situation would not be materially affected by my pecuniary interest and because this is not a clear case of disqualifying conflict of interest I will be voting on this matter please accept this disclosure and Lodge it on the record for this meeting and subsequent meetings pertain to this agenda item period done thank you commissioner Armstrong a much shorter disclosure I read and received emails and I'm familiar with the site thank you commissioner vill and wave unfamiliar with the site read emails commissioner dracul read and received emails visited the site and spoke briefly with uh one of the applican representatives all right I think I got everybody there I think we're good all right we will now open it up to public comment we do have some requests to speak forms first up is a Elizabeth Brahman in speaking in opposition and after Elizabeth will be Jan Morrison Elizabeth if you can state your name for the record and you have three minutes good evening Commissioners thank you I'm Elizabeth brayman and I own the property directly across from the proposed building I am not in opposition I I had there was no other to check so I want to share with you my concerns I was very very involved in 2012 with the abandonment of right or right of Lander Street I also have owned my property for 30 years this year and I live on Lander South near Urban so my concerns were when they built the building the science building it did not feel like it conformed to the beautiful brick it looked like a very large industrial style commercial building and I own the rock house on the other side on the southwest corner as snows has on the North northwest corner cuz they purchased the Rock House my concern is I bought this property and I try to take the best care of it granted my duplex is not the most attractive I didn't build it I wouldn't have built it that way but the reality is is that property is my income and I want to be able to feel like people don't feel like they've moved into an area that was not Midtown and my concern with the building the big building that we have that's being built is its proximity to the um Road and how the science building feels like it encroaches because of of Street of setbacks and I'm very very concerned about the traffic because people Park everywhere caddy wampas I understand they're trying to mitigate that through the traffic pattern off of wri Street dropping the kids off so people aren't going to be lined up on Monroe and Walker but my biggest issue is and I am more comfortable hearing about the manard roof the way it's being designed for the pitch because I was looking at the height of the roof and I just want to make a comment that I own other property in Midtown Old Southwest where people are building on the alleys informing me that the city's limit is 35 ft so there is a common belief out there that 35 is not a deviation just for public comment so I am very concerned that we have enough setback that I'm not going to feel like there's a giant commercial building because a church is a church it's a business it does many many things it does a lot of things for a community um I'm hoping that we can look at this as approvals are made as I said I'm not in opposition but I really would like to look at how it's going to affect someone like myself and at the age I was when I bought it I would have never thought this would have happened and I had many family members that attended snows too so I like so many people in this room have got intimate connections to snows so um I want to thank you very much for just listening to my concerns put those into mind thought as we go forward with your approvals your non-approval whichever direction you go with that and thank you thank you all right now up is Jan Morrison speaking in favor and after Jan will be Betty Dodson hi Jan Morrison for the record um first off I want to go to staff report on page six there's a small error in there I attended the ward meeting and I spoke in favor of the project but it doesn't indicate that so and I did bring a Written Letter to make sure that I'm part of the record tonight so I live over on Arlington my I back up my H property backs up with the um parking lot and we're in favor of this both the the um conditional use perit and the variance they've been great neighbors we moved into this neighborhood and my sister and I about through three or four years ago specifically be because of os and um I happen to be have a have a background in development and I love the diversity of the area I love the single family dwellings I love the multif family I love the businesses mixed in there all the public uses uses it's a very active neighborhood and um it doesn't go to sleep at night and I I really enjoy that so we love the architectural style we also appreciate that brick is going to be continued on the the new um Edition and I think within a couple years it'll look like it's been there since the 1940s the same as our house so we appreciate that that that there's a continuity of architectural style um I'm always out and about I walk my dog and generally it's in the afternoon when school gets out and I have to say that as as obviously I've harried been a harried mom taking kids to school it's always orderly it's packed but it's always orderly and um the traffic hasn't really impacted us or even walking everybody's polite but the new traffic plan I think is really well thought out and I think it's excellent so the expansion of that parking lot I think is really key and and taking some of the the um traffic pattern um more controlled and thrown one way out I think it's excellent so um just want to tell you that we think it's a great project we're totally in favor of it and and we appreciate all the work that went into it and I would like to leave my letter so it' be in the record thank you thank you as well uh Miss Dodson I apologize said you didn't want to make a statement think I need okay do you want me to read the paragraph do you want me to read what you wrote okay okay thank you buddy all right uh next up is Mike Escobar speaking in opposition all right thank you Commissioners and for the record my name is Mike Escobar I'm reading a statement I prepared about this topic I live on the South Arlington Avenue similar to the lady that just shared um my property will the on behind my property will be the proposed parking lot expansion um so I feel I'm very much personally affected by this project currently I live about 500 ft away from the r Lady of Snow's property I don't know what impact this or other public comment may have have but I want to go on the record saying that I oppose the expansion of the RL of no building and school as houses get converted and traffic patterns get modified to accommodate yet another outgrowth of this church property there appear to be zero benefits to the resident of this Midtown Community as a private school and religious organization it's unclear to me exactly what taxes or added value will granting additional rights over these properties give to the homeowners and residents who share the neighborhood with OS as things currently stand residents are are subject to a closed land or Street and closed parts of plumis Park throughout the year during every school day more disruptive however is the large amount of traffic during school pickup and drop off hours when these small neighborhood streets get choked with dozens of SUVs shuttling many children who do not even live in this area of town to and from a school that does not pay taxes like all other homes and businesses in this neighborhood the space required to accommodate hundreds of students is not suitable for this residential area of town um and as the gentleman from the City of Reno shared that's only going to increase student enrollment potentially unlike public school students who often take the bus or walk from the nearby homes they live in OS kids are largely dropped off and picked up by individual Vehicles given how many live outside this community encouraging continued church and school operations and indeed further growth by adding larger church-owned buildings and more expansive parking lots will change the character and primary purpose of this mixed use Community for the worse in the documents filed explaining how our lady of Snow's plans to change in the neighborhood several residents expressed opposition to this building project and I add my voice to theirs one homeowner Mark taxer stated that after studying the maps and building plans there did not seem to be adequate fencing or barriers between the newly proposed parking lot and the adjacent properties and I understand the gentleman earlier shared that there would be um I believe a 6ot concrete uh fence and then the gentleman from the City of Reno said that the lighting would be diminished in height from 18 to 13 ft obviously I don't know have a perfect mental map in my mind but I'm still very much concerned that the light know no if there any um events that happen in that parking lot that that's going to create a disturbance for homeowners nearby I Echo these concerns because my home's backyard would also share a border with a new oils lot like Mr taxer I'm worried there do not appear to be enough safeguards against noise and light pollution coming from this new lot for my part I do not feel like extending additional Grace space or patience to a private school that appears to have long outgrown this property it's time for Our Lady of Snow to stop asking the City of Reno and the residents of Midtown for more it's it's time for Our Lady of Snows to enjoy what they've gained over time and stop their land grab attempts every few years otherwise it might be time for them to find a larger property somewhere else that accommodates their parishioners and student body without imposing on others needs to public space and lands thank you thank you as well all right Michelle that's all I have on the request to speak fors anybody else voicemails or anybody online correspondence was received that was forwarded to the Planning Commission no voicemails um no more public comment forms and I don't do we have anybody on Zoom that wishes to speak if so raise your hand nobody's raising their hand so I think we're good go ahead go ahead yeah anybody wishes to speak in the chambers feel free to submit your request to speak form feel free to take the podium uh just hey Michelle did we lose commissioner belto okay still there okay still here all right sir you'll have three minutes and state your name for the record please does this work yes okay hi I'm Mark taxer who was just talked about um and I live I'm going to see if this will work that's my house on the corner anyway um my house is built in 1948 75 years old so right about the same time as the church um I have a bad ear infection so I'm I my volume and hearing is all off so bear with me um my concern is less about the noise and more about the light pollution um a 12 or a 6 foot wall and a 13 foot light I can just see light spilling into my house all night long um really my main concern the traffic I guess we'll see what happens um that's really all about about all I had any questions all right thank you for your time appreciate it sir anybody else in the chambers wish to speak on this item Michelle oh John would you like to speak I just wanted to intr that uh um I state your name for the record please John kmot kls planning I've been involved in this effort for 20 years uh had Greg take the lead tonight because he's an architect very he he designed the building did a fine job on it I'd be glad to be involved in any of the Q&A and further dialogue because we've done 20 years of Master planning that didn't really come out in the discussion tonight and I think there might be some if you want to engage in some narrative I'm I'm prepared thank you very much great go fill out a request to speak form for me Michelle anybody else I don't think so okay all right last chance anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant or staff commissioner rorm yes um Jee I have a question for staff so I understand the minor deviation was the request for the roof height was there any consideration of amending the plumis neighborhood plan or looking for a variance for like a flatter roof that didn't meet the 412 pitch which would have gotten closer to the height requirement uh Jeff Foster associate planner for the record um the major deviation um as you point out was for the additional 10 ft in height above the 25 foot maximum in the plumin neighborhood over plan neighborhood plan I do not I'm not aware of any consideration that uh regarding a change to the plumis neighborhood plan um specific to this project that was considered um certainly nothing was brought to my attention commissioner B please sure thank you chair you uh Mr Foster one for you it could be staff perhaps or I'm sorry the applicant uh there was concern brought up about the uh traffic um particularly maybe drop offs and you highlighted that there was a proposed kind of change or implementation of drop offs uh with the new parking lot and uh would you mind walking us through that and specifically highlighting if that proposed change helps mitigate the uh congestion concerns that were brought sure absolutely um can we bring up my presentation again please okay so um so the it's always nicer to look at the Landscaping plans are a whole lot prettier to look at right um so anyway um the um the intent and and the applicants representative did um talk about this during his presentation as well the intent is for traffic to flow in from the north um from Walker into the parking lot some folks will of course Park their their vehicles others will just flow through the parking lot and down to the South dropping their children off uh along the way especially at the southern end where there's a dedicated essentially drop off Lane there um exiting the site prior to exiting the site as you can see though they can also exit back onto Walker um so you can see the two-way arrows there so they they they uh you know people can park in there um flow to the South drop off or drop off and go head back out to the north can you demonstrate with the mouse do you have a mouse yeah the mouse is on the podium yeah thank you yeah just the flow yeah okay so coming in thank you very much commissioner vinoa um so coming in off a walker here to the from the north coming in flowing through the parking lot dropping off um and especially dropping off here uh adjacent to the new proposed Parish building here um so that's the intent uh is to pull as much traffic uh drop off traffic off of Walker here uh and Monroe by encouraging people to flow through here um I'm not aware of a way to require that um but it's strongly suggested strongly encouraged that the applicant um uh you know address that with their their their students their parents to drop off in that manner um so yeah does that answer your question uh yes Mr fer thank you you bet [Music] commissioner rmer yeah one more quick question from a planning standpoint there was mentioned that this has been a master planned project for close to 20 years I just wondered if there had been consideration of something like a specific plan Zone designation here um it seems like a number of entitlements and land use requests have to come through um and I wondered if if there's going to be future iterations or if there been any mention if this is sort of the last phase yeah and my understanding that is that this is the last phase as uh John uh catic indicated he is here and can answer that with a a more uh full understanding a fuller understanding of the quote unquote campus master plan but um it's staff's understanding that this is the final piece of the puzzle um the culmination of of the of the master plan thank you chair May yes please commissioner go ahead I have a clarifying question the entitlement that they received because they were in existence in 1950 prior to the requirement for a cup does that entitlement follow do they currently have that entitlement or is it with the Redevelopment of this is that entitlement out the window do they lose that no so they're um basically because the uses were established prior to to the zoning regulations they're assumed to have an entitlement and that's per code even oh yeah that's right even with a demolishment or even though it's being demolished that they maintain that yeah that that they have an assumed conditional use permit for the uses the the um previous expansion of the uses I.E the school building required a conditional use permit probably actually a special use permit at the time um so anytime that there is an additional use because we have the code in place now that requires the the new entitlement but the underlying entitlement for the uses themselves they're non-con forming but they will it's just it runs runs with the land so to speak yeah um the so we we heard some comments regarding um increase to patrons or school children do is there any way we can cap that or I mean I know there's going to be an additional 70 students um and it appears that a lot of the students are coming from outside of the neighborhood and driving in um is that a condition that we can include or is it kind of discussed with the applicant that that would because of the growth in you know the development expansion um it's assumed that we're also going to have that increase to so the the proposed expansion from 380 to 450 that additional 70 students was was the applicants applica that was their application um we staff did not give consideration to a condition that would limit it to the 450 but that is what the application is based on is the the maximum enrollment of 450 so it's implicit within the application no I mean what if we didn't give them then what if we had them maintain the current which is I'm trying to the 380 the 380 yeah I mean I know 70 doesn't seem like a lot but it's a small neighborhood I used to live right on uh Humbolt so it's pretty small and the streets are narrow and then all you know during uh you know peak hours there's a lot of cars which is generally not necessarily a problem but I mean 70 additional students oh here we go we got so um and John if you would like to speak but just the again the traffic impact study that was prepared for the project um analyed the additional trip generation from those 70 students those 70 additional students and and there were no uh significant impacts um as a result of the additional trips um and when you factor that in combined with the circulation flow through the site pulling some of the the existing vehicles that are currently using Walker as a drop off um and or Monroe as a drop off when you factor all of that in um staff believes that this is actually an improved improvement over the existing conditions even with the additional uh uh additional students okay and then can I do one more please go ahead uh the light pollution someone mentioned light pollution thoughts on that yeah absolutely so the additional the the six foot wall that would um continue to the South and then uh Head East adjacent to Mr taxer property um that 6ot solid wall would obviously block any headlight direct lighting um onto the adjacent Neighbors from the from the cars that would be parked up against it um as far as the the parking lot lighting the parking lot lights yeah that's the next one so as far as the parking lot lights um again code allows up to 18 feet um and uh the applicant uh uh proposed 13 ft um uh the condition was written in a way that encourages the the the lighting designer to look at um what is the max the minimum practicable height to achieve parking lot lighting objectives I.E safety right I mean that's the principal reason for the parking lot lighting um and so we want it capped at no no higher than 13 fet but we would encourage it to be even less uh to to the extent that those lighting objectives could be achieved having said that code requires uh cut off Optics and uh the lighting to be uh uh directed and shielded such that it's lighting the site not lighting off site so that uh the the light spillover should not be an issue onto the adjoining properties even though the wall is six feet tall okay thank you I have others but I want to think about it first I need to have sure take your time commissioner VTO while you're on the uh digital side of things you have any questions uh not right now thank you okay commissioner B please sure mine was related to lighting as well uh sounds like you spoke to it but maybe I just throw out suggestion like uh they have night night lighting like at Great Bas National Park uh I'm not sure if that would tie into here or if there's a recommendation for using a type of strategy or lighting that would uh make it so that the neighbors uh wouldn't be impacted by that even at 13 ft yeah again so code code is very clear on lighting um code requirements are very clear uh in terms of of uh the shielding and the cutof off Optics and the and the angling of the lighting and whatnot um so as far as new parking lot lighting goes um staff believes that code um will address that uh at the building permit phase having said that um again the the condition that requires the the lighting height to be a maximum of 13 ft and less if possible possible um goes above and beyond what code would require if they came in for just a standard building permit they would be allowed up to 18 ft so that additional 5et it would be a significant difference and by by lowering it to 13 and what code requirements uh already requires at the building permit phase the the lighting should not be an issue great thanks Jeff and just one more um there was mentioned about public parking making it available for public parking were there going to be times for that like like at the neighborhood park down no so the abandonment um of Lander where where that condition of approval came from um did not specify when the parking was allowed it just was that there were to be a minimum of 17 parking spaces allowed in that parking lot and so um at some point in time the signage was changed uh that that uh seem to suggest that the public was not allowed to park there and that's why the condition of approval is recommended to require the signage to be changed back to indicate that the public is allowed to park there um and there is no restriction on the times that that it would be allowed okay great thank you Jee right thank you commissioner Armstrong please thank you uh I think this one's for staff Jeff but if you want to punt it to the applicant that works as well so just going back to villo points about the students more of a clarifying question is the max so is 450 the maximum lot of students that they think they can serve um within the confines of what they're building right now like period like is that just the maximum that they'd be able to serve at any point in time or could they elevate that and if they can um what's the process look like if they do want to bring in more students and it has greater traffic impacts like what what kind of tools are available to the commission at that point so um the there is there's not a I'll punt it to the applicants representative in terms of just the functional 450 where that came from and whatnot that' be great um but as far as if they did want to increase enrollment um that that's not really a it's not really a planning issue per se right um and so uh you know I wish I had a you know you could in theory condition it I guess but at this point that staff's not recommending that condition okay yeah thank you John did you want to speak on that commissioner Armstrong uh thank you for the questions couple of uh comments on the school there's a lot going on with regard to school capacity and the students versus I think the traffic part of it but what I wanted to touch on was um in going from 380 to 450 that's the absolute capacity based on maximum density in the classrooms of which were programmed in the uh PowerPoint of which um the architect shared and speaking with to to make it clear in my mind and to share it with you guys the principle yesterday this was would be phased in over time right you have more students possibly coming upon opening of the Parish Hall which includes a couple of the classrooms um he's also said they're targeting smaller classrooms and so you know if you came in and had a new facility with three new classrooms and adding more kids than they then they trink classroom size which of course has some influence on the quality of education so there's a lot going on there so the the 450 really a forecast it's not they have that Absolut that's correct and then yeah so it's kind of like it trickles in over time and it trickles in over time right that was the conversation we had yesterday okay no that's actually super helpful color thank you thank you I I'd like to touch on I know the lighting was important to a couple of Commissioners as well and uh just so you know I did meet with Mr taxer yesterday uh staff Jeff did a great job on explaining how aggressive our lighting code is the cut off the photometric plan which was part of the application requirements um in the case of this hyper sensitive I mean Mr Tax brings up a good point if you live in its duplex we don't know exactly where that light standard is if you're sitting in a living room and I told him there will be a day in the future where we would be willing to meet and look at line of sight from somebody's living room and somehow adjust the standard that could be something you could see right because 13 ft is higher than the the initial floor in a living room and I get that gets into really hyp sensitive kind of lighting analysis but we're willing to do that as part of it with the people on the west and uh Mr taxers duplex on the south I hope that answ commissioner villain W please yeah well I have the applicant so I'm looking at and this is Google Maps so I'm looking at Walker Street and Wright Street there's a parking lot and that I believe is owned by Lady of the Snows am I that is correct all of that area is now okay and the and that's gonna is that being that parking lot's going to stay as is right it's there there's no changes actually it's going to be it has to be integrated in this bigger parking lot plan okay so we could go if you wanted to go to my PowerPoint I could I could show you that there's a little bit of transition because you're you're taking what is one parking area that was acquired you know some 20 years ago created a parking lot and now you've you're blending that into a um into a bigger master plan so you see the parking lot there how it functions if you can visualize that on the North End yeah and then uh you know the the purple there is the street the old Street alignment so that say again okay we'll go back one so the purple is Right Street yeah yeah that was the old right street right away so look at this area here is basically the parking lot that exists right here you can see it's a slightly different configuration because of the acquisition of the two properties of the South and integrating it in to a bigger picture you see no property lines kind of seamless and then that drive AIS that's the idea there and then the lights that I'm looking at right now on this Google image they I mean they don't appear very high so I'm not sure what the height of these ones are but they I mean they don't look terrible and does appear to not be too invasive are those going to change or is the light structures going to be if I think those are higher if anything they go down to that 13 cap of which we worked with staff on versus 18 is allowed by code okay okay thank you okay great commissioner VTO no questions right now thank you okay seeing no questions we can move into to discussion sure commission please yeah I just wanted to bring up to fellow Commissioners perhaps staff um Jeff you brought up a good thing you answered my question with regards to the um parking signs and the the hours for parking and it is it clear in my understanding that there is no answer yet there's just a understanding that a parking sign will go back up but there are no set out hours yet agreed upon that's that's correct yeah the the original condition did not limit what the hours that were available to be to use the parking it was just that there were to be 17 parking spaces so essentially 17 members of the public could utilize that parking lot whenever they want is that something that you'd recommend for us to have kind of discussion and alignment on right now the applicant or is that it's you're certainly more than welcome to it is a it is a condition from a previous abandonment so it's it's already on the record okay John would that be helpful for you guys to have that conversation now or do you prefer to have it later uh what exactly on the 17 spaces um just just having the signage indicate the the hours that those public spaces are available for parking yeah if you want to engage on more yeah I mean I'm glad to um but Jeff's right you know when we did the abandonment you got through access right that was part of the deal so anybody can walk drive or um mostly it's walking and biking and then um and then the public parking for the 17 spaces well let's not make let's not complicate things I guess maybe I'll reframe my question has it has it been a problem with so far or you know I don't think there's a lot of demand because it's basically you know kind of if you if you you come to the church or come to the school that's why you would park there right and and but certainly the Public's welcome and it's going to be signed accordingly in the overall scheme of things uh in the future of the master plan yeah thanks Commissioners do you feel a certain way or do you want to Hash this out or are we good I felt good about it from the beginning I appreciate you bringing it back up again though it's worth restating so okay thanks thank you any other further discussion I guess I'll just chime in quickly I appreciate what our Lady of the Snows has done and presented tonight and you have very thorough report um you know I read over this a multitude of times and it just seems like it's very well thought out uh on all directions also I do believe bring a lot to the community um you know I frequent the area for the parks and the basketball court which I know they maintain and help with um and also we're dealing with you know Rising increase in demand for schools like this and so this expansion probably does serve a need for the community and it's infill and you know locating this 10 20 miles away South Reno may or may not be serving the Midtown area as best as I would like to see it so I'm happy to see this be looking forward to supporting this project andbody wants to make a motion we are ready to go please uh I I concur with the chair's comments and I am ready to make a motion if there's no further discussion okay case of LDC 24- z0010 Our Lady of the snow's Parish Hall based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit and major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings okay we have a motion uh second Commission B with the second we have a motion in a second any other further discussion seeing none we'll go for a vote all in favor I any opposed seeing none motion passes unanimously good luck with your project all right closing item 5.2 moving to item five oh you know what and I'm sorry Commissioners we're kind of close to that 8 o'clock time do we need a short break sure all right we will take a short five minute recess where everybody get some water and and go to the bathroom all right folks we'll rally everybody back a little bit Mr VTO you cool brother good go okay all right thank you for coming back from the break we move on to item 5.3 case number lc24 D21 over ice beverages LLC we will take a presentation from the applicant hi my name is Curtis Beach um I'm one of the owners in over I Beverages and we are here asking for a conditional use permit or application to be approved for a warehouse that we're in um it's not a huge warehouse but it's a very small warehouse and I'll give you some history um myself and my brother and and a couple other guys started a business here in in 2000 and we ended up selling that business in 2010 for $155 million and it was successful and we love Reno and we want to continue businesses in Reno I have three businesses right now in Reno um we during covid got bored and decided to try to make a quality Margarita based upon Margarita my brother was buying at a Mexican food restaurant at his home in Westlake Village and um we decided to do it in December of 2022 and we decided to abandon a bottler that we were using in San Diego and use a bottler here in Sparks Nevada and because we wanted to put it back in the area we know and so we decided in February to go out and get a warehouse that warehouse was pretty much just going to be a small distribution center for our product to house bottles um we are less than if I continue here um well I'll start with this in we started this process in February of 2023 so I've been going at this for almost a year trying to get our business license in Reno Nevada and it's been extremely frustrating I have had I think I counted an excess of 17 visits to the City Hall here many of those to the planning board for the cup help with putting the cup application into the system it's not an easy system to use I think you guys know that and probably have heard that um through the business license division I've been to the Nevada State Tax Board six times I've been to Washo County three times I've been to the Reno Police Department once I it it's and I'm still here so it's been frustrating and I'm sorry but Carter has taken the brunt of a lot of that and I appreciate commissioner Mike rley for talking with me yet uh Tuesday about it um we are in a little tiny building in rigin court which is over near the mall um we have 3200 ft I am less than a 100 yards away from the new airport Commerce Center which is 890,000 Square fet it is a huge distribution warehouse Center I am 150 yards from its Logistics I have within 500 yards of me three other distribution centers but yet we're being asked to go through this cup process because we're in I guess a mixed use zone so we're here doing that we're going through the pain of it um that's kind of an overhead view of what's happening there where we are there's warehouses everywhere this is our little facility it's about 2900 ft of warehouse and about 300 ft of office these are the pallets that we get these come in from China they're in container loads they ship from San Pedro California um when those trucks come in I get two hours to unload them that's it that's all the trucking company allows me and if I don't do that I pay a fine a fee for leaving the truck driver there longer than that so we're pretty much we get it unloaded and we get it out very quickly um the equipment we use is an electric forklift because I can't have exhaust residue on our bottles I you which an electric forklift is very quiet I have a manual pallet jack and I have a hand Dolly that's my equipment that's it so I feel there's no safety exposure there to anybody in the surrounding area um these are our current sales this is outdated but you know we're not doing a ton of business we're a brand new startup we launched this in June 1 of this year um and it's been hard to get it going Nevada has some difficult liquor laws that we've got to live by um I hate to say that it's been easier in California but we are mostly in Southern California right now moving to Northern California and moving to Nevada we have about 30 stores in Las Vegas and we have about seven stores here in Reno right now um we average I would guess about two trucks a month or will average two trucks a month the last truck I had at our building was August 2nd so we're not doing a ton of distribution business out of our warehouse it's just not happening our business hours are 8 to5 and that's I have a phone number on the door for people to call me if they need me because I don't go to the office every day I have other things I'm doing um we have our bottler our co-packer is in Sparks it's Damon Industries they're a Bowtique bottler and they are currently providing our distribution for us out of their warehouse um because we can't do it out of ours and then I have a warehouse in Southern California that we are maintaining and have maintained for a year because I can't move it here and there's been a significant cost expense in that um I'm not the only guy getting trucks into our facility these are we have um Blind Onion Pizza we have wild garlic pizza these guys get their food products in every week loads of it so and they don't have a conditional use permit um we are growing and that is for real and so there will be a day I probably have already outgrown this building um we are in talks right now with another Warehouse in Sparks and that may happen that may not so I'm continuing this process just in case something happens with that and it falls through um we are growing Leaps and Bounds we just signed a National Rollout deal with Whole Foods and that's going to be 505 stores and that process is going to start it started this week we delivered to our first store this week so it's huge and it will grow um we submitted our product to the world Spirits competition in San Francisco and we want two double Golds a silver and two bronze which we were pretty proud of and we're pretty proud that that's coming from Northern Nevada so that was pretty cool and it we hadn't even launched yet we were up for what's called RTD or ready to drink cocktail of the year but we're told we'll never get it because they don't do that to companies that haven't launched and we didn't get it but we're pretty proud of where we are and we'll resubmit it when we do and I hope that we can represent Northern Nevada that way um these are the bottles they're goodlook bottles um and we're introducing them them to the local area here I'm doing tastings at um Total Wine we are doing tastings everywhere we can do them mostly in Southern California we do have a liquor licens in Southern California yeah so that's where we're at and I I hope you'll consider us and I think um I think it's a great product and I think it's great to represent Northern Nevada thank you thank you all right we now get a presentation from staff Carter thank you all right good evening Commissioners Carter Williams assistant planner for the record for you tonight is a conditional use permit for a warehouse and distribution use the property is located on the southwest corner of Tyrone Road and rigin Court you can see Meadowwood Mall um there to the west and um it's not shown here but the airport is uh to the Northeast um the project is located within a about a 3200t tenant space in a larger 2 Acre Site um the property is located within the mixed use urban zoning District which requires a conditional use permit for warehouse and distribution the property has the master plan designation of mixed employment and uh is consistent with policies related to Community Development the overall mix of uses in this the area um reduced truck traffic for a warehouse and distribution use and uses that are compatible with uh airport facilities so the on the screen is a image of the proposed location that is the actual Suite Entrance um it is an existing industrial facility um and the previous use in that Suite appears to have been a gym which is the reason why we're here today if it were a warehouse we would have been able to continue that use but because it transitioned into something that um is allowed by right within the mixed Urban Zone we have to it restarts the whole the process for for warehouse and distribution center even at the scale um the staff report or um staff's focus my focus was on um compatibility with surrounding uses um generally uh the area is characterized by mostly light industrial commercial and Ware house uses um there is although there is an area with two single family residences in the residences in the vicinity um there is adequate screening from of of the facility that is existing today um and generally the uh operations of the use are extremely limited um regardless staff has recommended a condition that does uh limit on-site movement unloading and loading of trucks to suitable hours um well above actually above their um hours of operation proposed um there also is a I didn't mark it on the the screen but there is a multif family project um to the west but it is um there's a significant buffer with another Warehouse building that's existing today um on the screen oh well those are the conditional use permit findings um it says master plan Amendment but uh those are the conditionally use permit findings through stas review and Analysis we were able to meet all the findings and I'm concerned about the next one that is the wrong motion so um the motion is in the staff report um staff recommends approval of the um application thank you C appreciate it all right we will now go to the Commissioners for disclosures uh commissioner VTO commissioner VTO familiar with the site um I think that's it okay commissioner villan NOA please commissioner villan WEA familiar with the site commissioner Armstrong I'm familiar with the site commissioner rera same disclosure commissioner roor Meer familiar with your site commissioner Dracula same disclosures okay all right now we'll open it to public comment I have no request to speak forms I did not receive any correspondents no voicemails and no one on Zoom great anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and open it up to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or the applicant commission V please question for staff um Carter do you have uh do you uh excuse me I should have thought of the question first do you uh have any concerns or do you see any concerns with the use of truck or um it appears he uses a truck to transport do you forese any issues there there's already existing facilities within the the actually within those buildings that that utilize trucks so there wouldn't be any additional impact in in our opinion and the residential impacts to the residential are limited because there's there's already that very significant 2 acre barrier between the existing multif family the single family residential uses are also within actually a flight path so it's not encouraged that those that the use uses continue for safety considerations um so this area also is expected to transition to mixed employment that's that was the master plan um so there will likely be a zone change in the future that really prioritizes light industrial or even more like well warehouse and distribution particularly in this area so I think it's planned to be um for that those types of uses um but with the current operation I don't expect any impacts okay thank you Comm B please sure thanks chair uh Carter just a clarifying question um the applicant mentioned that he's been at this since February is that correct uh so so kudos for hanging in there um what exactly was the reason for the delay like what's caused it I have not I was not involved with the business license review process so I'm not entirely sure what what the issues were with the with that particularly but when once it was submitted we have a timeline that we mooved pretty quickly in fact I actually bumped this meeting up this was supposed to be on the next meeting in December so we did we did attempt to move it faster once we did get it received okay great thanks Carter um just trying to get in ites into what we can do better as as a side note for this um and maybe for the applicant uh a question for you if you don't mind stepping up if that's okay CH please go ahead um you you you mentioned that you anticipate growth and uh which is great and um again thanks for sticking in there yep what do you anticipate your uptick to be and will the current facility be enough to support that growth no okay no it won't we we we are in currently in search of a new facility because of that we we think probably by the end of second quarter beginning of third quarter we will have to have a larger facility Q2 Q3 of 2024 MH okay so this is kind of a springboard for you okay we we had trucks on the we had I shouldn't say trucks we had containers on the water okay and I had to find places to put you know 30 pallets of bottles got it so that's so we took this this was the first place that met all of our requirements okay in Maj in the real world I need a dock High door I don't have a dock High door at this facility but this would help you uh achieve some of those goals in 2024 yes okay currently it it meets our requirement okay but in that with that growth it's not going to in several months got it thank you thank you commissioner VTO questions okay see no other questions we can move into discussion or a motion I can make a motion please do based upon actually first I do want to say congratulations on your success um and uh good luck with your project As you move forward based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions listed in the staff report way of a motion commissioner Armstrong I'll second all right we have a motion in a second any further discussion all right all in favor I I any opposed seeing none motion passes unanimously good luck [Music] you all right closing item 5.3 moving to 5.4 LD case number lc24 000020 Mill and Greg Street master plan and zoning map Amendment looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicant uh Marty harson architect um originate architecture uh for this particular um I I'm representing one of the property owners who recently purchased the um two Parcels the um six there be 19 and 36 um can I scroll forward how do I go to the oops this this one oops back up there we go um so our Parcels that we're talking about in this particular uh zone change and master plan Amendment are located uh on the south side of the man-made um water I guess you'd call it water retention uh for the grant here Resort uh those uh there are five excuse me four buildings there um those four buildings were all built in between 1969 and 1970 and they were all industrial at the time um clearly we've grown since then um right now there uh this zoning is um mixed use urban um and with my clients purchasing the corner parcel and the parking lot um and working with the property owner to the east um to give the most flexibility uh we had talked initially to staff planning with Carter about uh possibly changing back to Industrial but uh that didn't really quite fit into the master plan um pieces but uh General commercial seemed to fit that bill um also would allow my client to uh submit for a conditional use permit for a future project um and it also um for the property owner to the east allows them uh their uh more flexibility in terms of leasing out their their buildings um these are not exactly small buildings 52,000 squ ft 26,000 ft U my client's building is 52,000 foot footprint with two stories so um kind of large so uh the uh presentation tonight is uh just for master plan Amendment uh going from Urban mix use to S Burman mix use per Carter's Direction um and then changing the existing uh land zoning from mixed use for those Parcels to uh General commercial which does fit more in terms of the frontage right off of Mill um and we are fully aware of there's an RTC plan to widen Mill Street at some point so they're they're going to take a little bit of land I think that's that's it we had our neighborhood advisory meeting on November 7th uh neighborhood meeting uh last night at the project site um or my client's building um and that's it if anybody's got any questions thank you we'll get a presentation from staff and we'll come back you thank you all right presentation from staff Carter right H again Carter Williams assistant planner for the record so this is a master plan and zoning map Amendment set um for five Parcels totaling 6.88 Acres located on the northwest corner of Greg Street and M Street um to the north is the uh GSR um Resort the specific request is for a master plan Amendment from Urban mixed use to Suburban mixed use and a zoning map Amendment uh from mixed use urban to General commercial starting with the master plan so the general um like this this prop The Mill Street is an urban Corridor so Urban mixed use generally is suitable along or is identified for these areas um but because of this proximity or adjacency to mixed employment um staff thinks that it's an an appropriate transition to start grading down and start matching um density and intensity requirements across the street so Suburban mixed use has a slightly less in um intense capacity from a zoning perspective um which contextually within the area provides that transition down um generally master plan policies uh that support this are um Urban revitalization um the the M um greater reutilization of properties providing for more Geographic diversity and um providing consistency and height and massing um along Urban corridors from a zoning perspective currently it's Zone mixed use um to transition to General commercial General commercial is a conforming District within the um Suburban mixed use master plan land use designation um you can see that there's this Stark difference between the mixed use to the the North and this industrial mixed employment to to the South so it's a little jarring um from a zoning perspective currently by proposing this General commercial allows again for that transition um on the other side of Mill Street we have that zoning that prioritizes Industrial Development by assigning J GC to these properties we still provide for the opportunity for a mix of uses typical of urban corridors but ALS but also reduces standards um to be similar in formed to that of surrounding uses um some a summary of some of the changes proposed uh with this transition from mu to GC certain commercial uses will become available um industrial uses generally um will become prohibited and and that's really From staff's perspective it's important because we are able to prioritize um commercial use commercial and residential uses in this area to still provide provide that that balance of uses um between the that industrial prioritized section to the South and then the uh the commercial to the north generally though um retail restaurant multi family res residential um will remain allowed with with this transition from a development standard perspective um there's not too many changes from a setback perspective but there are changes proposed um a reduction for that matter for the max maximum height maximum stories and maximum density currently in mixed use There's No Limit um and General commercial does limit um height to 65 feet stories to five stories and maximum density to 45 dwelling units per acre this is more consistent with the um industrial zoning um development standards across the street I believe industrial commercial is 55 um with the similar Max maximum stories and residential is not allowed in industrial so this still provides that ability for residential to be established here if the property were to be red developed um and just a note there are no architectural changes so mixed use to General commercial ALS retains the same level of architectural detail that would be required under mixed use um so window transparency um features that draw provide interest to the the buildings will be retained if the property were to be redeveloped on the screen now are the uh findings for our master plan Amendment F staff analys we able to meet all the findings um for a master plan as well as for um a zoning map Amendment and the recommended motion is on the screen I'm available for any questions thanks card appreciate it we now go to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner velto uh commissioner velto I'm familiar with the site and I spoke with the applicants or I'm sorry I spoke with people in opposition to the project all right commissioner warer I'm familiar with the site commissioner bah unfamiliar with the site commissioner Armstrong I'm familiar with the site and I spoke with folks that were also in opposition with the project commissioner villanua familiar with the site commissioner dracul familiar with the site and also spoke with uh people in opposition to the project um all right we will now open it up to public comment I have no request to speak forms anything over there Michelle no correspondence was received no voicemails I don't have anybody on Zoom looks like we have someone in the chambers if you could please fill out a comment card as soon as you're done and state your name for the record you have three minutes Mr chairman uh members of the Planning Commission my name is Andrew D senior vice president morelo gaming we own and operate the grand Seer Resort I wasn't planning on talking tonight I was coming here to listen to the presentation because we didn't know what was planned to go in the site um we haven't had any the Outreach from the applicants um we have a large presence right next door and uh listening to staff's presentation you know this is the first time that we're seeing that there's going to be uh proposed Firearms business uh we have a non-restricted gaming license we host several large entertainment events right next door to the parcels in question and if you've seen the recent news we have proposed to do largest private capital investment in the history of the city and Reno on our property which will include a new Arena which will host Collegiate events like Nevada whs men's basketball uh concerts uh you name it as long as we can fit it in the arena we will have it there um so we feel like it's it's a little inappropriate at this time for the commission to take this up seeing as how there there hasn't been any communication from the applicants with the neighboring property properties about uses going in there uh we're extremely uncomfortable with any Firearms business um next door just based off the events that we have and um you you take into consideration what we saw happen at UNLV yesterday um commissioner Villa NOA I know um what your Alma moer and we're going to be hosting Collegiate events right next door to the property and God forbid we see something similar happen uh here in Reno um but the fact is we are gaming and the you know largest incident of a kind uh largest mass shooting in our country's history happened from a gaming property into uh large event U the Route 91 music festival in Las Vegas so uh given all of those concerns I haven't heard of um any protocols that would be put in place if patrons are going to be entering into uh the shooting range to make sure that they haven't been uh using alcohol um guns and booze don't mix um so you know we have concerns uh we'd like to learn more about the project I just had a discussion prior to this with one of the applicants for the very first time um but really like I said uh we came here to learn about the project tonight but we just feel like it is too soon for any approvals to go forward on this so thank you for your time thank you if you don't mind filling a request to speak for him that' great appreciate it very much Michelle anybody else on Zoom no no okay looks like we have someone in the chambers yeah if you can feel free to come state your name for the record you'll have three minutes and then fill out a request to speak form when you're done please sir sure hi my name is Ken Crawford um I represent the owner of the property uh and part of the development team get a little closer to the mic if you don't sorry got a bit of a scratchy voice too uh good to see you sir um I just wanted to let Council know tooo that we we have reached out to the Grand sier we have a really great rapport with them uh myself and some other people have actually uh personally trained their security team uh so we're aware of their gaming commission uh like status the all the protocols that the gentleman's worried about I'm more than happy to discuss with him or you guys as we get towards the conditional use permit side of things uh it was to our understanding uh with Carter that we're just stepping through the process this is my fourth facility that all have designed and gone through uh we just stepped through the process with the outdoor facility in stage coach uh so we understand that there is a lot of concerns uh I had two personal friends at the concert in Las Vegas so I understand those concerns as well um so any questions you guys have about any of that kind of stuff I'm more than happy to answer um but we didn't bring any renderings or policies or procedures because it was just the master plan and the zoning changed but I did want to after the gentleman stepped up uh come up here and see if anyone has any questions or whatever thank you we'll be asking your representative and if if needed he can call you up okay awesome well thank you appreciate you all right if you can fill out the request to speak form I appreciate it thank you very much anybody else in the chamber's which please come on up Sir state your name you'll have three minutes and please fill out a request to speak form when you're done Hawkins I am the uh director of training and NFA compliance for uh the property in question uh historically I am a retired Reno police officer as well as United States Army uh veteran uh many years back um the director of security for Grand Sierra Muhammad uh rafaat who was a lieutenant with our department reached out to me because I had taught at the Academy level and throughout Northern Nevada as a instructor in both both hand to hand through firearms and officer survival to create the program that they currently have for SRT uh that was done with the Reno guns and range where I was the training manager excuse me I'm getting over uh I was sick last week so my voice a little scratchy um when the pandemic hit all of that got shut down after the pandemic cleared we reestablished that program and put their uh security team through two days of intense training uh qualification after the program was established it was challenged by Nevada gaming and they were actually directed to terminate their employees the director at the time contacted me I reached out to investigator up here North and then was directed to the investigator in uh Southern Nevada wrote them a very lengthy uh description of the training that were provided and they turned around and uh reestablished their uh Sr t Team immediately and I was told that the training that we had established was actually a model for what they wanted to see at other facilities we I personally very much understand the concerns of um firearms and the misappropriation or misuse of such and that's why uh just this week I reached back out to their director of uh security and their supervisor for SRT we want to be good neighbors I want to meet with these people I want to reestablish the training that we had in the past I want them and their armed professionals to be what other casinos and establishments look at for what they should have we understand there are bad people in the world and things do happen but when we respond appropriately and within the level of force necessary to resolve these things we do so with minimized risk to our public I am part of this community I have served this community for over 30 years and wish to continue to do so and I'm just going to apologize we didn't reach out to you sooner and we will make up for that if you have any questions of me or my background or anything like that I'll be happy to answer for you thank you if you don't mind feeling I a request to speak for thank you all right anybody else in the chambers wish to speak on this item Michelle anything else on your end all right we'll close public comment and move to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant or staff chair I have some questions please do commissioner VTO thank you um my first questions I want to ask a few questions of the applicant sure Marty Harrison architect hi good evening thank you for joining us you bet um I I'm it's not common that I hear from uh people in opposition and from the applicant conflicting stories over whether there been communication who exactly did you all speak with at uh the GSR I'd have to defer to my client please do so when we initially did the training I had actually had all their um executive staff come down and witnessed part of the training we did because they had similar concerns we had about an hour hour and a half um debrief with them they had given me all their business cards when we realized we were getting this building I tried reaching out to those people unfortunately discovered that they were no longer part of that so I did reach out to um the security director and had a meeting with him on Tuesday that would be uh Pierce to me and with Jake and I apologize I don't know Jake's last name uh who is now the supervisor for SRT to try and and re uh initiate what we had done in the past um we had a very good working relationship with them when we managed Reno guns and range since leaving there and and expanding what we're doing now I wanted to reestablish that so I I just wanted some clarity on that so is it true that the you said you had a training where you gave some business cards to some Executives when was that training so when U Mohammad reached out to me they wanted to establish an armed professional um security response team and what he wanted from me was protocols that would not only meet the state requirement for armed professionals but exceed that and there's different things that have to be in that they need to have understanding of laws uh arrest and control procedures they needed to have uh firearms training they needed to have a objective qualification but we wanted to go beyond that and also have a subjective uh performance evaluation so we did one full day of live fire training on the Range we did half a day on um arrest to control laws for use of force uh Firearms retention and then we did uh half a day of reality Based training in the reality Based training we actually conducted that on property at GSR it involved several scenarios to ensure that their personnel that they were hiring were in fact using judgment that was congruent with their policies and state law um it did result in the termination of one of their employees because at the end of that training it was determined that the way that person acted in those scenarios was not congruent with either their policy or law sir I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm just trying to understand the when did that occur that originally would have been believe it was 2017 2018 do you remember Ken exactly yeah I believe was several it was been several years back and and at that time were you considering this application no sir we were um managing Reno guns and range at the time and in 21 uh after a failed attempt to purchase that we ventured off on the path that we are now on and then we discovered uh the property that we're currently in and are trying to reestablish you know the relationship we had before so from that time in 2017 until this Tuesday when you spoke to you reached out to the director of security did you have any communication with the GSR we had been working with them doing um their qualifications and their training until I left in July of 2021 from Reno guns range my staff stayed and continued that training with them at rgr um and then my understanding is that they then left the rgr facility for their training went to another uh range off property and um that was the reason that I reached back out to him so um the let me ask that question a little differently from the time you had the training in 2017 until Tuesday of this week did you have any communication with the GSR about the application the commission is currently considering no we had no idea we were going to be doing this until after 2021 uh 2022 okay uh thank you um I have some questions for uh for staff if that's okay unless anyone else has questions on this topic you can keep going no problem oh thank you okay Alex I'm here Carter Carter Williams with the record hi Carter how you doing I I have a couple questions for you I'm trying to understand first um the conforming the finding that this is conforming um the entire area that is surrounding this parcel is urban mixed use I'm trying to understand why um it makes sense to transition down with on within the same block before you get to the lots of land that are across the street is that consistent with how we typically consider transitioning down in my uh experience we typically transition down kind of adjacent uh across the street and transition that way it seems abnormal to me that we would transition down on the same block of land so so generally we from it's good planning practice to not have a dividing line which we actually do in this case unfortunately um a dividing line along a street because when you have two separate zones that have two separate standards that that are kind of in congruent out of scale scale in this one in this case it is mixed juuse has no limit on height no limit on on density on the other side there's there's a limit to 55 ft so it would be good planning practice from our perspective to um maintain uh like similar design standards on both sides of the street um so so that would from a conformant standpoint especially from a from standards we would we would consider this conforming okay I I appreciate that I want to talk about the uses so when I was looking through the allowed uses that are permitted under the existing zoning versus the proposed zoning under the proposed zoning some things that are prohibited are for instance hotels with non-restricted gaming Hotel Condominiums and cannabis dispensaries um given that our you know guiding principles encourage uh you know vibrant neighborhoods uh Economic Development and Tourism wouldn't it make sense to keep those uses allowed when this area is directly adjacent to a resort in Casino I think that from uh so specific to the hotel Gaming use I me I don't I I haven't totally considered that but I I think that the the the context I so From staff's perspective one is this this is what they're requesting GC um I do find that the uses um for mixed use urban specifically we could just get more Industrial in fact there's an industrial building currently there so by narrowing it down to a more commercial Centric area it I think it better targets that area for a mix of uses so although um I mean Hotel commercial um that and commercial condomini or sorry Hotel condominium wouldn't be um allowed I I don't see that as necessarily um being a hit against this application I think that that From staff's perspective it's still supportive Bas based on all the other uses that would be allowed I would also say that based on the narrowness of the site these the site I don't think would could be developed as a hotel casino um easily um but generally I think we're focusing more on the broader picture of what other uses are allowed here what's our what's our Target for this area especially beinging it at the the end of a corridor and to go back to your transition conversation because this is at the end of an urban Corridor leading into more of an industrial area um those like the the transition down from uses also kind of makes sense because it's it's services start to fall off as we go further out into those areas okay I I appreciate that I also want to hit on what is um permitted under the proposed zoning um one of the things that was flagged um in public comment was the potential for a gun range another potential use that is permitted under the provos zoning is chemical processing um how is Staff how have you evaluated the the potential for those uses given the proximity to uh Casino and Resort and um forgive me I I I might have to look up the code but I think chemical processing requires a conditional use permit as well as hazardous materials so there's still an extra step in fact hazardous M materials if that or hazardous um waste facility I think is what it's listed in as in the code those two uses or the Hazardous Waste Facility also has to go to the um city council and there's a a major public engagement process that goes goes along with it so although it's allowed by right or not I mean sorry allowed with a additional process um I mean staff finds that the procedures established by state law um don't necessarily don't provide a space where we would um not support this application thank you I really I really appreciate your feedback Carter all right we'll kick it to the Commissioners in the chambers commissioner Armstrong you act okay well actually commissioner VTO touched on most of the questions that I had so I'll reserve my comments for our comment period okay commissioner Villa please thank you chair I have a couple questions for Carter their master plan use questions so um which area what sphere of influence is this in in the master plan so it's in the city of Reno's sphere of influence is that well in the sphere of influence that I see that there's like the urban Corridor there is the downtown district there is the so on and so forth so so this yeah it's not sphere I so there's different elements to the structure plan in the master plan is that you're referencing or let's see um how would you reference because I'm looking so I'm looking at the so the urban Corridor is is a part of the structure plan and this is within the mixed use area of the structure plan which doesn't have a lot of policies to it but General commercial is a mixed use Zone okay so okay so and you can help me understand this a little bit better since sure you know this like the back of your hand so okay so if I'm looking at the sphere of influence and there's the regional center you know uh Neighborhood Center Corridor employment area neighborhood and then it goes down Regional has the downtown and the convention center and so on so forth so none of this we don't even have to consider any of this these components yeah this isn't located in in a oh it may actually be located in a regional center actually but I think what you're referencing is the structure plan and and those those are driving our our policy considerations too um with particularly the urban Corridor that that's the big the big one right that's what kind of what I was thinking yeah because it does show the sphere and then it shows the maps and then this appear and again you you would know more than I would it appears that where this is located it would be deemed the urban Corridor yes it is along an urban Corridor yes okay and so let me jump back to page 122 sorry give me a minute um Comm commission V can can you tell me where you're at in that are you looking at the master plan yes I'm at I am on page 120 well initially I was on page 102 and now I'm jumping to page 122 thank you and 122 shows the policies and the type of relationships and uses in a urban Corridor and this is this the change would kind of obviously fall outside of the you know so for example let me explain this a little bit better so the urban Corridor as I see here it says overall mix a broad mix of higher intensity uses will be supported in urban corridors including but not limited to retail uh commercial so on and so forth gaming existing non-restricted gaming uses and non-restricted Community amenities so on and so forth so this very much seems appropriate given that it's in the urban Corridor but if we in I'm sorry and you may again understand this better than I do um but if we change um this you if we change it from SMU to sorry lot going on so if we change it from Urban mixed use to Suburban mixed use how does that get impacted or does it maybe it doesn't get impacted so this the the structure plan is it's a it's I mean as master plan generally is a guiding policy document the structure plan designations were never contemplated um per the property so it it if you imagine looking at that map really far away and and it all blurring together so there's a lot of flexibility in in how we Implement that the structure plan um particularly and the reason I'm pointing out that this is at the tail end of that Urban coridor is this really a place that we want to prioritize um uh some of the enhanced pedestrian environments that we're looking for downtown or further down along the corridor we still obviously want to meet minimum code requirements and General commercial provides for that but um Urban mix or mixed use urban like really prioritizes it to a point where it may not be appropriate anymore um for the context of the neighborhood especially particular to the um to the master plan and the zoning across the street which which has much much um less intense standards okay and I have one more clarifying question if I can please go ahe sorry again if I am confusing these things so [Music] the okay so we're going from a master plan Amendment from a uh 6.8 Acres of urban mix use to Suburban mixed use and the within the sphere of influence are they each are they both appropriate or is one more appropriate than the other or does it matter so staff is arguing that Suburban mixt use would be more appropriate because it's at the tail end of that Urban Corridor and the um relationship to surrounding zoning districts it's more compatible based on the development standards okay so now I'm gonna I'm gonna let someone else talk while I go look into what you just said please do so I have a question sure commissioner R goad Sor um thank you I you're saying it's at the tail end of the Mill Street Urban Corridor explain to me rtc's plan which which is for intensification of that same Corridor so how can we talk about down zoning and deintensification uh walk me through that so RTC is definitely involved they're they're working on a project right now to um to widen in fact incre um increase the um from my understanding is that they are increasing the width they widening Mill Street which creates more of that Auto oriented environment kind of moves us away a little bit away from the um pedestrian or oriented environment they are definitely improving the safety along that Corridor with pedestrian improvements um but the existing development in the area doesn't really provide for the opportunity for expanded sidewalks pedestrian amenities um and those things aren't required currently on the southern side of of the uh of Bill Street so although I I think there are impr improvements going in RTC and there's there's um Transit stops that are important I think for this mixed employment um mixed employment master plan and Zoning that's that's in the area I mean for for the our Workforce um necessarily driving um all that we're looking for in the mixed mixed use urban District I I don't think is as appropriate um and I think that there's an argument to be said that General commercial with the reduction in density actually will provide for an o a better opportunity for those uses to establish because it's down zoning has the impact I mean potentially has the impact to decrease P prices maybe bring it into more bring the properties into an opportunity for for development to or Redevelopment to occur that may be more appropriate for for the area because currently it's industrial I guess I have please oh commission Mike wanted to jump in no problem you can go back commissioner Ro for the record Mike really planning manager I would like to make one clarification on the structure plan um it appears that the structure plan that the mixed use area actually ends at the GSR this would be in the industrial logistic employment area that extends to terminal way so it's actually identified in the structure plan as a less intense area this property sorry commissioner if you wanted to continue you may I yeah I just was trying to understand if there was a goal through this pedestrian safety and Corridor safety RTC initiative to create better connection between the airport as a tourist destination and the Grand Sierra as taking Transit using other means by just automobile or if if your understanding of this connection is something different well I I think that there's already a strong in my opinion there's a strong connection there are two routes that are along Mill Street which with um and then there is at least one route and two stops that exist within the GSR facility itself so I don't think that a transition to Suburban mixed use would um would um hinder that that development by RTC and Suburban mixed use also talks about um areas that are may not be in the uh like immediately ready for the high-intensity development um that we want to see in in in areas closer to the core of the city so I think that this area being well now in the structure plan more closely aligned with the industrial Logistics area for this for this um these properties um and being Within the the context of the other designations we think we feel it's appropriate commissioner B please sure thank you chair uh thank you fellow Commissioners uh two maybe a twoof folder for Carter and and one for the applicants representative um is is the project along Mill Street the RTC capacity and Safety project is that the one you're referring to yes correct so thanks Carter is um is this zone change like a prerequisite for that project to be um successful as being invisioned it would not impact their capacity to either way to to construct the project the um I believe that already we would probably have to reduce the sidewalk width to what rgc would require or would allow or the minimums rather okay great thanks Carter and the second part to that is um uh had I commissioner velta already touched on like the communication um between the applicant and the stakeholder GSR um or at least try to highlight what was going on there has staff communicated or been in in contact with uh GSR as a large stakeholder in that community and the second part to that is does a zone change uh require or kind of demand such conversations to occur with large stakeholders before change is made so um obviously the GSR is within the noticing distance that so they they do get notice um and they receive two notices okay um there's a neighborhood Advisory board meeting um and uh staff members of the staff did have a uh inperson meeting um where where things were discussed I wasn't a part of that but um so there was some engagement um to some extent um for the second question master plan amendments do actually have an additional neighborhood um meeting requirement um that was held yesterday uh beyond that um there's not anything that says the larger you are the more engaged you get to be or or we have to engage with you more um so it's it's it's an equitable process obviously but yeah okay thank you Carter last one if I may okay good yeah please um was there any feedback at that uh NAB meeting yesterday or or was there any kind of I'll defer to the the applicants representative uh Marty harson architect again uh thanks Manny um the really not any further communication in yesterday's meeting um you know we're we talking about a fairly small sliver of land that's backed up to the GSR pond so okay um just trying to do the best for our client that's about it understood well I have you here sir I did have one question for you earlier you had mentioned and correct me if I'm wrong here that this would be the fourth facility oh no that's not me no um no my uh my that's uh the uh the owner's representative of the building okay yeah you want to speak oh that is correct thank you for pointing that out yeah hey hey sorry for the mix up there no worries K C so you had mentioned that this would be the facility is that correct yeah so um in approximately 2012 uh I designed and went through Sparks uh city council for unanimous approval for American Target Sports okay uh uh I was part of the and hired by uh Debbie for Reno guns and range so I was the development on that one and that facility backs up to an apartment complex so there's you know a lot of safety concerns there noise all that kind of stuff probably kind of going toward towards my question I don't mean to cut you off there but just to kind to get to it is um of those facilities how many are adjacent to a casino or in the proximity of a casino uh no none sir that's why this one is so good it's not adjacent to anything okay all right thank you so much just clarifying question there no worries thank you thank uh if I may uh Carter just question for you so master plan Amendment it makes sense to me and I appreciate your analysis uh section you cover that pretty well and I guess you kind of cover the reason for going to General commercial and that was the when I first read this and even tonight right now I'm still not connecting with why would we go to GC um and then why that and then also did you factor in I I guess what I'm trying to say is having GC next to a casino I've yet to see us have that ever come in front of us before so just trying to understand one why GC even though it obviously conforms what the SMU is stated but you know what your thought process is and what that looks like well and I think if if a Suburban mixed use Zone was submitted with or GC I think we would have accepted it or had the same perspective um probably more GC again because of those development standards that we have this interesting uh um adjacency against mixed employment which has the much lower intensity height and uh story requirements and and no no capacity for residential so that I think that from unique perspective I don't think we have a lot of opportunities for GC because most of our um hotel casino activities are more towards the core right um in this case there's we have one that's directly abing a a lower intensity Zone yeah and that was the part I'm just trying to connect with you here I know it probably isn't easy for you with this uniqueness of the grant hero is location um but thank you I'll put some more thought into it appreciate it commissioner V own way please yeah for you Carter first I I do want to say thank you for your comments I I all engagement equal engagement doesn't matter how big or small so that's very much appreciated um but you know I don't care about that I always evaluate each application pretty fairly um but and I always am very critical whenever I see a master plan Amendment come forward just because it means that we're changing something that we put a lot of effort and time into uh when considering 20 years into the future um of how our City's going to look and operate and and so and it is quite surprising here because I'm so I'm looking at the urban mixed juice and then I'm looking at the Suburban mixed juice and under Urban mixed juice it's things like um mix so things that are considered appropriate and you know this I'm not tell doing this for you but things that are considered appropriate in urban mixed juice under the master plan are um mu mixed juice Urban mixed use downtown Midtown commercial mixed use Midtown residential multif family parks rways and open space public facilities planned unit development specific plan District then we go to Suburban mixed juice and it's things like multif family uh multif Family 21 multi family 30 neighborhood commercial General commercial professional office it it's very much a it is a uh you referenced it earlier um what was the term you use like lesser uh less intense or less intense yeah it's a it is very much less intense which is quite odd given the area it's right by a freeway um where is it uh it's by a freeway it's on Mill Street which is very much industrial and um there's a lot going on there Mill is well known for its W not warehouses but it's auto mechanics and it's window tinting services and so on and so forth so the compatibility part still kind of gets me Suburban mixed use so maybe to bring it back to some some historical context about what Suburban mixed juice replaced um a lot of our Suburban mixed juice are located outside on the um these corridors like South Virginia Street North Virginia Street above the university um that have a lot of different adjacencies um we see South Virginia Street that there are some adj there's a lot of adjacencies right to adjacent to residential so multif family 30 with the Suburban mixed use might make more sense in certain areas because it it transitions down to those um but in the same way up in North Virginia Street and along Mill Street we have a lot of adjacencies within with industrial con context and we we don't want to it's still a mixed use Zone we don't um or land use designation we don't um we still we want to provide these transitions into these neighborhoods so so that's why I think there's a there's a broad difference between because GC and we wouldn't put GC next to single family residential but there's a lot of SMU that would have butt single family residential in in areas in South Vis indust street so although the master plan at a high level could allow for some of these um lower intens well multi family 30 is still pretty high intensity I wouldn't be able to support multif family theity here um because of its adjacency to it Industrial um but GC is is what's on the table today and that that's um we would be able to support it based on the the the intensity conversation on development uh development standards and uses okay thank you I don't know that I'm convinced but thank I do it's very thorough explanation so thank you thank you uh Mike please can I make a clarification once again Mike reallyy um I I stand correct Carter was correct that the mixed use designation actually ends at this property boundary I went in into our mapping system and got some something with much higher resolution than than what's shown in the master plan um everything to the south of this property um basically to to the Greg Street Terminal Way intersection is where it ends um then properties to the South are in that the uh the lower intensity designation that I stated before okay what's the name of that designation just for my education that is [Music] is I got too many screens going give me just a second here I'm looking at all of them uh that would be the industrial Logistics employment area designation and that's less intense yes it is oh interesting okay thank you clarify it's actually it's on the border between mixed use and Industrial Logistics so again with that structure plan far out it's kind of a a melding of those designations and that's how we look at it okay um no further question okay great commissioner VTO you've been quiet for a minute you have any more questions uh no questions just whenever we're ready to move into discussion okay Commissioners any other questions happy to move into discussion yeah yeah please do commissioner velto um I I want to say first I really want to compliment Carter in his uh explanation I I don't think any of us were asking him easy questions and it very much shows he is a clear command of the master plan the policies the goals and and everything so I just want to say good job on the the presentation i' would always appreciate uh hearing your applications and hearing the way you present things um you know on this application I think I differ than uh than than the city on this point where I don't think I can support this application because I don't think it's conforming and I think it's inconsistent with the master plan you know if you just look at a map it the surrounding Parcels are Urban mixed use mixed use and if we're changing the zoning of that this this set of parcels this one parcel uh that alone I think it makes it inconsistent but beyond that I think it's inconsistent with what the master plan tells us we should prioritize you know guiding principles One deals with resilient and local and Regional economies and creating a business-friendly environment you know I'm not convinced that the potential allowed uses are consistent with us having uh a strong Regional local economy guiding principle three tells us to look at Economic Development and Tourism and again some of the proposed uses and what's prohibited are not consistent with that that principle you know I'm concerned with what is permitted and what is prohibited some of the permitted uses uh are gun range and chemical processing I I understand that there's uh would potentially be a need for a cup in the event those were permitted uses but the potential to allow them uh is is really concerning to me uh is really concerning to me and I don't think that would be consistent with what uh what we should be prioritizing or what the master plan does as far as what's prohibited that is more concerning to me because one of the guiding principles tells us to encourage economic development in tourism yet this proposed zoning prohibits uh hotels with non-restricted gaming licenses Hotel Condominiums cannabis dispensaries warehouse and distribution and private community centers uh which goes to the guiding principle four which is the vibrant neighborhood centers and mced use development you know those are some inconsistencies I struggle with I I also independent of those findings I can't make a finding of pedestrian safety given the potential allowance of a gun range I understand again this require a cup but the potential for that especially considering there's a large resort that's adjacent uh adjacent to what could be a proposed gun range creates a a definite safety threat and you know we're too close to October 1 and this happening at a casino in Las Vegas for me to think that this is a safe option um and I I understand we're only looking at the allowed uses and what the master plan requires so this isn't necessarily a part of my assessment for denying the project for proposing denying the project but we'd be foolish not to acknowledge that GSR has just announced a significant Improvement to its property and that this area is drastically being developed so if we are going to change the zoning to prohibit things that could be uh permitted and would be consistent with how this area is developing I I'd be really concerning about supporting that uh so so because of that you know I would be opposed to the recommendation of Staff um but I again I appreciate the presentation I appreciate all the questions that I've been able to get answered thank you commissioner Armstrong discussion thank you chair yeah so uh I largely sort of echo a lot of commissioner bto's concerns um the thing I had a hard time with in the staff report it states within the vicinity there's ample Transit stops cond conducive to Urban mix use designation but the nature of the existing uses does not yet support the type of setting in urban Corridor contemplates I think the goal of the master plan designation that is currently in place is to eventually see that surrounding area support that kind of urban mix use designation um I have a hard time supporting a downward transition um from Urban mixed use to staff's recommendation I agree that use is allowed by right in that designation um I think that commissioner Villa had walk through make more sense in the area especially in light of the gsrs expansion plans um I also have some discomfort around uh the allowable uses in the down zoning uh in particular the gun range I understand that it would eventually go to a cup but I think over the course of the hearing we've sort of seen that the ultimate goal is that it will just come back here here for a CP for a gun range um I view this is a significant departure from the existing master plan and I think that the current master plan designation is actually the most appropriate for the area and I would have a hard time deviating from that for those reasons I'll also be in opposition thank you commissioner warm please yes I'd like to thank um both commissioner VTO and commissioner Armstrong for eloquently articulating my sentiments EXA ly um I do not see this as a location to be having less intensification of land use um I don't see this as a Suburban character this is at The Interchange of a freeway um very close to the proximity of a major regional freeway intersection um and right next to the largest casino in our Northern Nevada so I'm sorry I I will not be supporting this project or this request to rezone commissioner Jack uh I echoed the statements of the previous Commissioners I couldn't quite get there uh not only the deviation from the master plan but to the rezoning to The General commercial commissioner verer please D commissioner villan NOA yeah a lot of what was said I do I mean this is a a request for master plan Amendment so doesn't matter what it was going to be I do appreciate the firearm safety that you guys you know the efforts you take to be safe with firearm and uh your efforts to educate um my no vote is strictly uh with respect to the amendment I just I'm very uh hardpressed to um change the master plan in general um and certainly not in this case um because for because of uh those statements um made by my colleagues thank you okay thank you Commissioners commissioner velto looks like you may want to entertain a motion uh yes uh happy to make the motion um for making Motion in the matter of case number LDC 24- z020 let me make a question actually for for Mike should this be two separate motions because there's a master plan Amendment and a resoning or is this just one motion to deny if that's my motion this is Jasmine mate for the record I think you can make it as one Motion in this case thank you so much um apologies in the matter of case number LDC 24-20 uh I moveed to deny the request for a master plan Amendment and a zoning map Amendment um because I cannot make the findings for conforming use consistency with the master plan um or safety as a finding and for that reason I make make the motion okay we have a motion to deny the proposed motion commissioner berser look like you would need to speak just to clarifying question often times we're encouraged to vote in the affirmative to make it clear that something is denied I'll I'll clarify once we get the yes so we have a motion to deny do we have a second second commissioner baser to deny so we do have a motion to deny uh and deny the adoption of the master plan Amendment uh and also approve the master plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment so a vote of I is in support of denial of the motion does that make is that clear no there is mud your vote of byy is to deny the proposed Motion in alignment with commissioner VTO statement all in favor of denying the motion I any opposed to the denial seeing none the proposed motion is denied thank you for your time just to clarify that was the proposed application is denied just for the correct correct correct okay thank you it moves to council as a denial a recommendation for denial so they have the final say do you want me to read the not okay it's not an appealable item it goes to council regardless okay and it'll go forward as a denial okay thank you all right we are now opening item 5.5 case number lc24 d19 Starbucks lighting major deviation good evening everyone my name is savan apps I'm here with kimley horn and Associates we're the engineering firm representing our client Rhino holding Summit on the proposition of a new Starbucks development within the Summit Mall um our client is Rhino holding Summit I think I said said that um but we're here today to specifically discuss a a major deviation to the proposed site lighting so while we're here we're going to go over the site location um I assume most people are familiar with the summit mall but we'll dive into it a bit deeper um for those who aren't um as well as the proposed project what the um current site looks like and some of the zoning the surrounding uses and then we'll dive into the actual major deviation and then the lighting plan so the site plan or the site location um is in South Reno the summit mall is located kind of in a triangle of development um at the intersection of i580 South Virginia Street and Mount Rose Highway uh a schematic of the summit mall is shown to our right um the north arrow is pointing plan right some of the popular retail sites at the mall are a Dillards Orvis sentury theaters we also have some prominent um restaurants in the area uh for um kind of sizing the summit mall is 64 acres and it was actually originally developed in 2006 and is recently um kind of seeing a um increase in the amount of out pararel development that's happening at the mall um as you can see indicated with the orange star on the site that is our proposed project location I like to say it's a little island of development amidst a sea of parking stalls that is a97 Acre Site so the proposed project um runs along Summit Sierra Boulevard which kind of bisects the summit mall we are proposing a 2600 roughly 2600 a um square foot coffee shop with drive-through access that's a benefit if any of you have been to the summit mall you know that the current Starbucks does not have a drive-thru so they're pretty excited for this one um there will also be patio seating along um the front and side of the building and um quite a bit of parking um in addition we will be de demolishing some of the existing parking stalls that are at the summit mall in order to make way for this um drive-thru so there are substantial um parking stalls associated with this development and then there will be Ada access along Summit Sierra Boulevard to the North and South um as you can see here the existing site is an undeveloped out parcel um it's a roughly graded pad there is some existing parking some existing Landscaping um much of the existing Landscaping will be maintained um albeit graded and then um Rel landscaped but the general schematic Remains the Same uh the zoning we'll um touch on on the next slide but it is mixed use Suburban so as we can see here um the entire 64 Acre Site of the summit mall is mixed use Suburban um we see a lot of the similar uses um that are com compatible with this uh with the Starbucks that's being proposed um once again The Dillards some entertainment areas such as the cinemar um I believe there's a escape room Orvis Lululemon Apple um a big retail space I do want to note because we want to be mindful of any residents in the area there are some apartments as you can see um right here and um these are some newer Apartments because we want to be mindful of the residents and this is a major deviation to lighting um we did a quick elevation analysis and um the apartments are actually placed 40 feet higher than the proposed Starbucks is um so just being mindful of that but we don't foresee that being an issue because of the elevation difference so with that we'll jump into the major deviation um under City of Reno Land Development code mixed you Suburban areas are allowed 100,000 lumens per acre of development because we put uh we sit on 0.97 Acres this allows us 97,000 lumens under this code um the site was developed with Starbucks standard lighting specifications in mind and that is um why all of the lighting was proposed as it is so this totals 134,000 and8 lumens um for any more lay um audience members you may be asking what is alumin um it's kind of an arbitrary or more arbit AR um measurement of light but essentially it's a measure of the total amount of visible light from a light source uh diving into the lighting plan a bit further we can see the site plan once again um to orient us Summit Sierra Boulevard is on the right hand side of the um the screen with access to the Starbucks um from Summit Sierra on that right side um along the perimeter of the site you can see these red dots do Each of which are indicating um a different lighting Source all of those red dots along the perimeter are a standard light pole you can see that indicated with this black um black standard light structure these are similar to what you would see in any parking lot environment um honestly a little bit smaller than what you would typically see in like a Walmart parking lot um the idea being to place those on the perimeter of the site to increase lighting around the parking lots um and in improve the um safety of patrons who are navigating to and from the site from their vehicles and then additionally we have a larger light as well located at the trash enclosure um reason being for any um people who work at Starbucks who need to get to the trash enclosure late at night or early in the morning either for their closing or opening shifts um and just ensuring that they feel safe walking to and from um then it in addition to that um um we have strip LED lighting that will be along the um side of the building as well as right where they um where patrons can pick up their orders at the um order window and um that will be under canopy um under canopies that are proposed along the building um and it'll all be downward facing lighting that um illuminates the walking path especially um because we do have Ada accessible stalls um right here at the um north of the building building and then additionally on the building facade there are a few wall sconces that are being proposed um both of which are shown here as an example um I do want to emphasize that all of the light will be facing down which is um which follows the City of Reno code so there won't be any lighting that's Illuminating the sky it'll all be for the purposes of light um maintaining a well it walking path so with that um I want to say thank you and we'll be available for any questions thank you so much looks like we'll get a presentation from Leah yes thank you Savannah that was a great presentation made my job easy all right well good afternoon commission or good evening uh Leah picatti associate planner with the City of Reno development services and this evening I am presenting the application for a major deviation for the lighting at Starbucks and Summit Mall as Savannah stated the project site is an approximate 09 7 Acre Site located pretty much smack dab in the middle of summit mall parking lot you can see on my map that it's highlighting of the majority of the parking lot there and that's because the applicant is in the process of going through a boundary line adjustment to create that 097 acre parcel so as you're looking at these maps and you're thinking wow that's a large 0.97 Acres that's why it shows it that way we know that today's request is to exceed the 100,000 lumens per acre site lighting standard standard by less than 50% it is uh the request is for approximately 38% deviation from that standard here you can see the subject site is located in the mixed juice Suburban zoning district and the key issues analyzed in this request were the overall site design and compatibility with surrounding developments and uses another thing I need to point out here is that all we're really looking at here is lighting um the drive-through portion of it does require an entitlement and that minor conditional use permit was approved in June of 2023 so any concerns related to the drive-thru or traffic or how people are navigating in or out of the site really doesn't have anything to do with today's request today's request is strictly about the lighting on this site and as you can see the applicant has supplied this Lumen plan here and Savannah's presentation pointed out the lights but the three I wanted to point out are these three internal ones and these are really going to have the highest lighting output of any of them on the site each one of these is about 18,000 lumens but they're placed strategically in the center of the site for a few different reasons and one of those is safety but the other thing is that because this is in the middle of a parking lot and you've got that street running along the Eastern side of it there really isn't a lot of lighting at this site or around this site because all of the nearest businesses are located a significant distance away I think the nearest business here is about 250 ft away and we do believe that there's going to be pedestrian activity on this site because people will be walking from one side of summit mall over to the other ones over to the other stores we've got the movie theater across the street and in addition to that I'm pretty sure we have a hotel going in uh kind of southeast of where this is as well so we do anticipate that there will be pedestrian activity associated with that use as well um in terms of uh compatibility with surrounding development staff looked at the same thing that Savannah was pointing out there that you do have some residential uses there to the Southwest but again um when we looked at the type of light fixtures that were going to be used with those fully cut off fixtures and the elevation change between where the Starbucks is going to be located and those existing homes it shouldn't have any impact on them at all they sit about 40 feet higher than where this is going to be and the tallest light poles I believe are going to be about 25 feet on the board you can see the recommended findings for major deviation staff was able to make all of these findings uh shouldn't have a significant impact on nearby properties definitely going to improve safety in the parking area doesn't constitute a special privilege because any other properties can also apply for that same major deviation and it should have no detriment to public health safety or welfare in fact it should increase public health safety and Welfare recommended motion is on the board I am available for questions thank you thank you Le appreciate it sure we now go to the Comm Commissioners for disclosures commissioner velto please uh commissioner velto no disclosures commissioner villan AA commissioner villanea um familiar with the site um shop at the site commissioner Armstrong uh commissioner Armstrong same disclosures commissioner Basera same disclosures commissioner rorer no disclosures commissioner Dracula familiar with their site I think we did get one email in opposition snuck in there just for reference all right we will now open it up for public comment I see no request to speak forms correspondence was received and forwarded to the Planning Commission no voicemails were received and there is no one on Zoom okay anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment open it to the Commissioners for questions of staff or the applicant have a clarify please clarifying question for the applicant did you say this is uh Starbucks Starbucks's standard Lumen so this is across the board what they consistently use at all their locations so the lighting that's being proposed is standard for Starbucks um in the essence of how much lighting they like to see um but as for lumens in particular um I think that that's dependent on the size of their site um so definitely because um we do have a lot more parking stalls associated with this site than we would see standard I think the code requirement is 12 and we're proposing nearly 40 um it is increasing just the um the amount of lighting that the site would need for just the general size so like the number like the the so guess I'm not Lumin expert but like the number the number of like lights in General on this side may it is it's it's not like a consistent number that Starbucks uses generally it's just because of this site but another site may have a different number but the Lumen itself is the same yes the Lumen itself is the same the lighting fixtures are um the same barring any like jurisdictional restrictions on that as what what we're talking about today um but I think that that um they actually typically go under foot candles which is not what our code currently restricts um but it's kind of an Associated measurement um that they would that it would fall under so yes they do try to maintain a um specific amount of lighting standard across like any of their walking paths and um yeah if that answers your question and in the photo that you had of the three samples is that what they're going to look like the the different type of lighting yeah that's um those exam or those photos were ex um exactly from the specifications that have been provided um and that was submitted in our building permit application okay thank you commissioner B please sure for Steph maybe you can shed some light on something um um was pretty good well first off the the three example lights were great I was kind of thinking of that for the earlier uh project that we were discussing but um for these lights um since they are out of since they are deviation do they typically go off at night like at some point when they close shop and then yes oh okay exactly so um Rena Municipal Code requires that all of the lights be extinguished between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. um however if the business closes earlier than 10 p.m. then they have to turn the lights off when the business closes okay so yes there will will still be security lighting at night um overnight but the the majority of lights will be extinguished okay thank you move into discussion or a motion commissioner rer just a quick point of discussion I'm the lighting I think actually fits for given the mall setting um I'm very I'm so happy to see more coming to that sea of Park so appreciate that thank you [Music] great I can I can make a motion I'm looking for the motion based upon excuse me uh with respect to case number LDC 2419 based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions list listed in the staff report we have a motion commissioner RoR second we have a motion and a second if there's no further discussion all in favor I I I any oppose seeing none motion passes unanimously good luck thank [Music] you all right we go to item 5.6 case number lc24 d17 US 395 exit 7 6 gas station and Warehouse Amendment looks like we'll get a presentation from the applicant please hello everyone my name is Josh hindo I'm here with kimley horn representing our client Circle K for a proposed Circle Circle K gas station in North Reno uh our state is located off of said Boulevard in North Reno just south of the freeway and north of North Virginia Street quick summary of the zoning uh it's mixed use Suburban zoning with the land use designation of suburban mixed use there was a previous conditional use permit on the site uh last year that was approved which included a request for drive-through facility in mixed use Suburban uh fills greater than 10 ft Crossing of a major drainageway and gas station use and mixed use Suburban to we're here today for a conditional use permit with the requests of hours of operation between the hours of 11 and six so 24-hour use as well as drive-through facility in the mixed use Suburban zoning as you can see on the site uh map here the surrounding uses are certainly compatible uh there's industrial as well as some residential to the north which would uh bode well for the use proposed of gas gas station and um drive-thru food facility the Amazon fulfillment center is actually just across the street and as you'll see in the next slide our uh site proposes high-speed diesel fueling so a lot of truck traffic will be using the site uh here's some site photos showing existing conditions and topography and here we have a preliminary site plan so there's a convenience store with a drive-thru restaurant on the South Side uh the drive-through is shown there it's kind of hard to read but uh through this conditional use permit we've shown that there's sufficient capacity to meet City of Reno code uh the standard fueling stations are in the front on the right hand side uh access is off of Ste Boulevard and then there's high-speed diesel fueling in the back um often times truck drivers will drive through the night and so that's part of the reason that the for our uses proposed so that they can have access to buy anything they'd like at the convenience store here we have a preliminary landscape plan showing some of the Landscaping proposed there is increased Landscaping requirements along stad Boulevard to help with screening for the drive-thru this is a preliminary rendering of the building including the right now it's proposed Subway to determined on the final user but um as well as a preliminary ring rendering of the fuel canopy thank you all for your time and I'll be Avail available for questions thank you very much looks like we'll now get a presentation from Leah again hello yes again Commissioners my name is Leah picatti associate planner with City of Reno development services and this afternoon or this evening I keep saying that I am presenting the application for this us 395 Exit 76 gas station and Warehouse amendment I just want to point out that the warehouse portion of this is not being contemplated in this amendment that's why you didn't see any information on that that still is uh retains all of the original entitlement and the original conditions as does all of the grading and the major drainage waste that's going on so all we're really looking at in this amendment tonight is the 24-hour use and changing the location of the drive-thru from being south of where it's proposed to being where it is now so here you can see the 4.81 Acre Site the little piece down to the south of the site and the larger piece off to the west of the site uh we're part of that original entitlement originally it was all one parcel but it's been split into three that drive-thru was originally proposed on that smaller piece that's on the corner of studen Virginia and um now it's being moved onto this main 4.81 acre parcel subject site is located in the mixed juuse Suburban zoning district and is mostly surrounded by mixed uh use Suburban industrial commercial and then the GC off to the West there key issues over key issues analyzed in this review were overall site design compatibility of a 24-hour use with surrounding developments in use and roadway and traffic which I'll get to why we're talking about that here in just a second so here you can see the overall site design um staff did work with the applicant on the placement of that drive-thru and it does meet the minimum requirements for a drive-thru which is 140 ft of stacking space behind the window where the order is picked up I do want to point out too that what we're looking at there is a price private drive that's going to eventually extend up to that warehouse property off of stead Boulevard so if for any reason this uh drive-thru ends up stacking out into it it it's 370 feet from stead Boulevard so if it does spill out it's going to spill out into that private Drive rather than spilling out into one of our roadways uh regarding compatibility with surrounding development and uses uh we have mostly Industrial uses we got Self Storage we got the wrecking yard we've got more self storage and then we've got a non-conforming residence that's located there on the corner of Virginia and stead and then we've got a mobile home park um after staff looked at the overall zoning in this area what is currently there and what could potentially be there staff feels that the 24-hour use is compatible with those surrounding developments it's also worth pointing out that most of these Parcels are industrial zoning and if you end up with any kind of Warehouse or storage and distribution those are all Allowed 24hour by right in those zones so we may eventually as this area develops uh see more 24hour uses in this area all of the original conditions of approval were just transferred over into this entitlement I didn't change anything except that I added two conditions and these were based on the engineers review of the traffic study that was provided with this application and basically um it's going to require an end do encroachment permit which it would have required that in the first place it just wasn't conditioned and our engineering staff just felt that it would more comfortable with conditioning that so I added condition number 14 to require them to get that encroachment permit and then condition number 15 is we want them them to update that traffic impact study because the uses that they cited in that were I think like gas station and convenience store and Engineering felt that they needed to evaluate that with a use that was more similar to that and let me tell you what that use was hold on it was so they based it on convenience store and gas station um and we felt that they should base it on gasoline and station um so the applicant is going to update that uh traffic study and any roadway mitigation or improvements that are recommended from that uh will be provided from the applicant and also they're going to have to provide documentation of OTS approval to the city so that's what those two conditions added in and that was really just the review from our engineering department and what they thought that this application could use so the conditional use permit Amendment review findings which are the same as the conditional use permit findings are on the board staff uh analyzed all of these findings and was able to make all of the findings recommended motion is on the board and I'm available for questions thank you thank you Lee appreciate it Commissioners for disclosures commissioner VTO uh commissioner velto familiar with the uh the site uh no other disclosures commissioner rorer I'm familiar with the location no disclosures commissioner masera familiar with the site commissioner Armstrong familiar with the site commissioner villan W no disclosures commissioner Dracula is familiar with the site all right we will now open it up to public comment Michelle anything no request to speak forms no correspondence or voicemails received and there's no one on Zoom all right anybody in the chambers wish to speak on this item seeing none we will close public comment and move to the Commissioners for questions of Staff or applicant commissioner VTO we're quiet on this side you no questions discussion or a motion to make a motion I was gonna make a comment because I wanted to channel commissioner munes and say please do this is this is what we want to see in the north house well played well played um go ahead with your uh motion commissionerate it uh in the case matter of case number LDC 24-17 Bas on compliance be applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit Amendment subject to conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings we have a motion second second I'll good we have a motion in a second any other further discussion see none all in favor I I I any opposed seeing none motion passes unanimously good luck with your project thank you all right closing item five moving to item number six trucky Meadows Regional planning liais zone report Mike no report this evening all right closing item six moving to item seven staff announcements uh just a couple quick announcements um and I'll kind of blend everything into one here just a reminder that our next meeting will be held at the spark city council chambers um so just on Wednesday be aware of that on on back on our normal on on the 20th um and then the only other news I have to report is that the notables SPD that you recently approved was that recommendation was upheld by the city council at their meeting yesterday cool thank you closing item seven moving mov to item eight commissioner suggestions for future agenda items see none closing item eight moving to item number nine public comment this item is is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment Michelle do we have any general public comment request to speak forms no correspondence no voicemails were received no request of speak forms and no one on Zoom anybody in the chambers wish to speak on General Public comment seeing none we will close item number nine public comment move to item 10 adjournment so moved all right we got a motion and a second all in favor I I I have a great night everyone