We need four on the zone change, too. All right, this is the City of Reno Planning Commission meeting. This is Wednesday, April 1st, 2026. The time is 6:00 p.m. We will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Gonfiantini. I pledge allegiance to the flag >> [clears throat] >> Madam Clerk, roll call. David Jackman? Here. Jacob Williams? Absent. [clears throat] Manny Becerra? Absent. Christina Del Villar? Present. Christi- uh Tina Gonfiantini? Here. Carrie Rowmeyer is absent. Alex Velto? Here. We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. Thank you, Madam Clerk. So, with those absences, that will require that we postpone item C5 on tonight's agenda. That is the Master Plan Conformance Amendments, and we will hear that uh hopefully at our next meeting, April 15th. So, with that postponement, uh we will actually now move on to item A3, public comment. Madam Clerk. It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole. Commi- 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. >> [snorts] >> 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. Um we did receive correspondence that was general in nature. Uh those were forwarded to the commission and entered into the record. With that, I do not have any requests to speak forms in person. We do not have anyone online with their hand raised for this opening public comment period. Any requests to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, we will now move forward to approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda subject to that uh item C5 being moved to the next meeting. I'll move to approve. Second. Motion and second. All in favor, say I. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. Only two two kind. >> And item A5, approval of the minutes. This is from our fourth our March 4th, 2026 meeting, and uh also uh the minutes from our March 18th, 2026 meeting. I'll move to approve both meeting minutes. Second. Motion and second. All in favor, say I. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. That moves us to item B, staff announcements. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple quick announcements. The Aspen View Drive rear setback deviation that was continued by the Planning Commission at your last meeting has been withdrawn. The applicant has revised his plans and no longer requires a minor major deviation. Um no other announcements. There are no planning cases scheduled for the next City Council meeting, so that's it for tonight. Thank you, Mr. Riley. Items Items [clears throat] C, we will move on to public hearings. We will take these in order tonight. First item is item C1, staff report for possible action recommendation to City Council. This is case number LDC26-00031, Ridge Park Zoning Map Amendment. We will begin with a presentation from Ms. MacAdam. Thank you, Commissioners. Grace MacAdam, Senior Management Analyst, for the record. I'm here to present on the Ridge Park Zoning Map Amendment. >> [clears throat] >> So, the subject site is just over 1 and 1/2 acres in size, um but that's part of a larger 13.2 2-acre site. So, what they're requesting a zoning map amendment on is just that little sliver of of uh the site. The applicant's requesting a zone change from multifamily 14 units per acre to general commercial. The master plan on the whole site is urban mixed use. Um this doesn't require a master plan amendment, so it's just a zone change, and this zone change is supported by multiple of our master plan policies uh that were discussed in the staff report. So, as stated previously, the applicant's requesting a change for just that sliver from multifamily 14 units per acre to general commercial. Uh general commercial is a conforming district with that SMU Master Plan land use designations. Like I said, no master plan amendment needed, and it just will make the whole parcel kind of consistent, allow for some um easier processing for development. So, as far as development standards, this will make the whole site consistent. It cleans up the parcel, so when we're applying development standards, it's a little bit difficult when you have a split zone parcel. It's allowed. It's not that it's non-conforming. But, let's say MF-14 has you know, 15-ft front setbacks and general commercial has 0-ft front setbacks. It just allows that we don't have to apply that MF-14 on that small sliver since the project's for the parcel as a whole. Either way, the project that's associated with this zone change can move forward. So, in conclusion, staff was able to make all the recommended findings. And the recommended motion is on your screen. I'm available for questions, and I believe the applicant has a short presentation as well. Good evening. For the record, Dave Snellgrove. I'm planning manager with Bowman. With me in the audience tonight is Mr. Scott Montgomery with Bates Company. They are the applicant on the project and property owner. And I also have Billy Anderson and Matthew Claudefelder with Loomis and Associates who have worked on this project with us. >> [clears throat] >> I won't go through the presentation unless you'd like me to. I think Grace covered the the biggest issues on this. You One of the things and we we do have a following case, which is the tentative map. With that split zoning, we actually had a zoning line that went right down and split houses or lots. So, the front half part of your house would be general commercial, and the back part would be MF-14. So, we do feel that this cleans up and and meets all the legal findings that are necessary. Be happy to go through any any questions that you have, and I do have slides available that I could do that. With that, I'll close my presentation and I'll be available for any questions. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. We will now go to disclosures from the commission followed by public comment. Commissioner Valteau. Commissioner Valteau, no disclosures. Commissioner Delvear, received and read material and I'm familiar with the site. Commissioner Gampietini, I read and reviewed materials for familiar for familiar with the site. Commissioner Jackman, on this matter, I sought guidance from legal counsel. Loomis and Associates is a subconsultant to my employer on a project in the City of Fernley that I am working on. In this agreement, they are employed by my firm, Kimley-Horn. Here, I do not have a commitment in a private capacity to the interest of the applicant or their representatives and can be fair and impartial in my deliberation regarding this item. Madam Clerk, public comment. I have not received any public comment for this item. We will now Do we have any requests to speak in chambers? We will now close public comment and move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Delvear. Um Grace, sorry to make you And this kind of goes to the next item that we will see, but I'm trying to understand one, why um why not why not multi-family for both, why this particular designation? Um especially because then the next one we're going to see is the tentative map for housing. Just I was just kind of curious as to Sure. >> that decision. So, I don't want to get too far into the next project. Um but, the split zoning was a result of a boundary line adjustment that was approved um not too long ago. And so, the whole parcel used to be general commercial. They used to be two separate parcels. Um and so, the project was previously previously approved on that general commercial parcel. So, everything that they had done for this project planning-wise as far as the the lot sizes, the allowed uses, everything like that was under that general commercial zone. So, it just made the most sense to clean it up and bring this one into conformance. Great. Thank you. Um and then the And again, maybe this is for um the next item, but one of the public comments was asking about the trails, which I know in the next item you talk about. So, if if we need to, we can we can wait until that to talk about the trails. >> I'll um I have a slide in the next my next one for that, so I'll punt for the next item if that's okay. >> Thank you. Commissioner Valteau. Uh I don't have any questions. I'm prepared to make a motion unless you would like to do deliberation. Uh seeing no uh flags from the commission, please proceed. In the matter of case number uh [clears throat] Oh LDC-26-00031. Based upon compliance to the applicable findings, I move to recommend that City Council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance, and I can make all the findings. Commissioner Gampietini, I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously 4-0. That concludes item C1. We will now move on to item C2. Staff report for possible action, case number LDC-26-00032. Ridge Park tentative map. Ms. McKinnon. Getting my steps in. Good evening. Grace McKinnon, senior management analyst again for the record, here to discuss LDC-26-00032. And this is the tentative map that was associated with the prior zone change. So, the subject site is Um I forgot to orient you all last last presentation, but this is up by the Walmart off of Lyman Drive. Uh and the applicant is requesting an amendment to a previously approved tentative map. This amendment would ultimately allow for 20 additional lots, um which would result in 99 total lots. This request is also associated with an alternative equivalent compliance for street trees, which the previous request also had. And it includes a conditional use permit for fills exceeding 10 ft in height, disturbance of a major drainage way, hillside development, and more than 20 units. >> [snorts] >> So, I'd like to start with some background just because this has some um it gets a little murky just because it has some previously approved tentative maps and projects associated with it. So, in May of 2022, this body approved a tentative map for 80 townhomes. In May of 2023, that request was modified to remove a unit and only be for 79 units total. And then in July of 2024, there was that boundary line adjustment I discussed. And that increased the boundary of this parcel and allowed for some reconfiguration and additional lots to be placed on the site. And then that led them to this particular request. So, going back to the previous or the previous presentation, since that was recommended to be approved, we'll we'll hopefully see this uh site change to all general commercial. Um the base density is 45 dwelling units per acre for general commercial, but the applicant is only proposing about 7.4 dwelling units per acre. Again, the master plan plan for the site is suburban mixed use. So, as stated, I think this is a good slide to kind of show you before and current proposal cuz ultimately that's what we want to see, right? So, this includes 99 attached single-family homes with 4 acres of undisturbed open space and 303 off-street parking. And that far exceeds our requirement of 198 required parking spaces. So, this is kind of one of those products that's allowing for um you know, one of those missing middle type housing types with ample parking again, but it's also surrounded by some other types of multi-family housing, attached single-family, and then there's those neighborhood centers to the south south southeast, I think. These units will be a mix of three- and four-bedroom units, and then they'll include a trail that connects this one to some of the adjacent development. And so, just for your all your your um to tell you which one's previous and which one's current, the one up on top is the um is the uh Oh, I'm sorry. I got a slide ahead. These are both the same plan, but one is showing you kind of the site plan, the other's show helping showing you kind of the trail access. I'm sure Dave was like, "Wait a minute." >> [laughter] >> I apologize about that. Um so, when we talk about compatibility, um like I said, there's some different types of housing types surrounding this site, which is good. We have We see some multi-family um to the west. We see some additional attached single-family. And then we see that proposed Highland tentative map, which you guys just extended last meeting. And then we've got some neighborhood commercial, neighborhood centers surrounding the site as well. Now, we can talk about the comparison of the two sites. Um and so, previously approved is on the top of your screen. The proposed is on the bottom. And something I wanted to to touch on was kind of the improved vehicular access and pedestrian access that resulted from these um changes. And so, as you can see, there's not any more dead-end streets like you saw in the previous plan. We've got a little bit more through streets. Um so, it just makes a little bit more sense from from a vehicular access perspective. And then we have those um trails which help improve the pedestrian access to and from some of the adjacent sites. All right. Staff was able to make all of the recommended findings. Recommended motion is on your screen, and I'm available for questions. And the applicant has a presentation as well. >> [clears throat] >> Good evening again for the record, Dave Snelgrove, planning manager with Bowman. And uh still in the audience with me, Mr. uh Scott Montgomery of the Bates Companies, and Matthew Claude Felter, and Billy Anderson with Lumos and Associates. It was refreshing to have Grace come up. It's been a long week to me already, and I it's good to know that I'm not the only one that fries out. Um yeah, I was sitting there going, "Wait a minute, those are the same." Though I will go through a few slides here based on some of the questions that came up in the last one to make sure that we appropriately cover those. I'll scan through some of this stuff that that Grace already covered. This is the prior um prior layout. And you can see we basically had a street that went in and worked like a lasso in that blue line. And I circled in purple those dead-end streets that kind of get rectified and improved quite a bit with the new layout. So, this is the new layout. You can see those streets that were dead end before, they go all the way through. This is better for day-to-day and also emergency access. And also to the the uh road that goes around, it doesn't go into a lasso, it goes into a full loop. Again, much better for fire access. This property is right next to bus stop route seven. Um it's in an area that's identified in the master plan as being a uh uh it's a commercial neighborhood center area. There are certain nodes and Golden Valley, uh Lemon Drive, and Stead Boulevard in the North Valleys area are all all identified for this. So, we feel that with the trails, which I'll get to in a minute and how those link in, that we've actually created something that that'll really enhance and be able to be something a little bit more walkable than what we had the opportunity before. >> [clears throat] >> This is the side-by-side comparison of the old plan on the left and the new plan on the right. The site on the right, that that slope going up to Vista Knoll's, that was a manufactured slope that was created when Walmart was put in. On that side, we've actually added another elevation. On the right-hand side here is a hillside adaptive architecture because we do have some slopes. Again, we are a hillside development on this, but that was all manufactured slope and put in so that they could get access up to the Walmart site. The rest of the homes will be in the two-story, which is on the left-hand side. That's just an example. They do have different elevations. I believe we've got a total of five different elevations within the product. >> [clears throat] >> Kind of a a rendering and some floor plans. Those those uh hillside adaptive ones on the bottom in the blue, they'll actually have a four-car garage area and then two living uh areas up above. Um So, that that adds quite a bit to the parking. The rest of uh the homes will all have at least a two-car garage. Some do have a two-car driveway as well. So, this area, this is the area that we looked at in the last case that was that was the rezone area. That area is a steep slope down and gets some interesting use. Uh cart rolling down down the hill towards the drainage way is one that's fairly popular. I had it enhanced, you couldn't really see the cart as well, but I enhanced it here on the right. We've got more cart rolling uh into the drainage way and also camping. So, what the opportunity in in gaining this property and bringing it into the subdivision rather than kind of being this no no man's land, it allows the future homeowners association to have responsibility and maintenance for that area because it'll affect them the most. So, we feel that it's a What's it Everybody get their own? Well, they they do have a cart corral down next to the down near the bus stop. That I think that's where a lot of these stacked-up carts came from, that they were from the cart corral. Someone was waiting for the bus for too long. Overall, this is the the trails map and the pedestrian access map. So, the purple lines are the sidewalks within the subdivision area. And then the green lines are the the trail area. So, we do have a trail that goes out behind the homes and connects up to the bus stop. >> [snorts] >> Um and then we also have a branch that goes off and it gets up to Vista Knoll quicker. So, people from the Enclave subdivision, this subdivision, could get on the trail. They wouldn't have to go out to Sky Vista Parkway. They could actually go on a trail and get access up to a shopping area in a much more convenient fashion and quicker fashion than would be the case if they had to rely just on the sidewalks going around. The sidewalks in in what I've showed with the trail, it connects in with the North Valleys Regional Park Trail System and can get you all the way over into the trail area, which is more of a passive recreation, or you can get down into the active recreation area for the North Valleys Regional Park, not having to walk along Sky Vista Parkway. So, we do feel that that's a big positive with this, tying into the overall trails out in the area. >> [clears throat] >> So, feel it provides the 20 additional lots um within the approved subdivision. If we I think if we'd been at 19 lots, I think this could have gone administratively, but we were at 20, which required us to come come with the additional tentative map. This adds additional diversity to the housing. The housing out in the general area, you do have some apartment housing, you have some detached single family. This is a duplex-type product, a little bit smaller lot size. There are some others a little bit farther away, but in this general vicinity, it does diversify the housing type. Uh provides for an ownership of a small lot product. It is a very walkable community, and we feel that the trail connections add a lot of positive, not only to for this project, but for the entire area. So, with that, I'll close. We're in agreement with the uh staff's recommendations analysis. We believe that all the legal findings can be made. And because there's only four tonight, I'm going to beg that all of you vote in favor of this because we need four votes to get a tentative map approved. So, with that, I'll close my presentation and be available for any questions. Uh we will go to disclosures. Commissioner Veltri. Commissioner Veltri, nothing to disclose. Commissioner DelVillar, received and read materials, and I am familiar with the site. Commissioner Confientini, read and reviewed materials, familiar with site. Commissioner Jacqueman, same as before on this matter. I sought guidance from legal counsel. Lumos is a subconsultant to my employer on a project in the city of Fernley I'm working on. In this agreement, they are employed by by my firm Kimley-Horn. Here, I do not have a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of the applicant or their representatives, and can be fair and impartial in my deliberation regarding this item. Madam Clerk, public comment. I have not received any in person, and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers? Seeing none, we will close public comment on this item and move to questions from the commission. Uh Commissioner DelVillar, I'm not sure who wants to answer, it's fine. Um I wasn't sure what the alternative equivalent compliance was about. I don't think I have a slide in the back part of this. Um get to the site plan. So, you look at the site plan, the requirement is that you need to have street trees, and they're typically required to be spaced one every 30 ft. We do have a situation going through parts of this where we can put them you we've got a lot of trees going along you got those two the arrows going north-south. And down on the southern end of that and on the northern end, there's a lot of trees on that run. But when you get to portions around over on the eastern side, you get more driveways that are sticking out, and we can't meet the spacing requirement for trees. That's what the alternative equivalent compliance is. This is used a lot when you get into T-courts, hammerhead courts, which is what this was a play-off of. We just ended up extending these straight through that you really can't meet the standard requirement. Well, what we've There's just be planted in more meaningful areas. So, we've got areas over on the eastern side and then up where the trail takes off on the north end of the plan north graphic. That's what the alternative equivalent compliance does. Okay. And then if you can leave the slide up. So, you talked about how the the trail's going to go along uh Vista Knoll instead of going on Sky Vista. But is there going to be a crosswalk to cross over to the shopping center? Or will they cross down at Sky Vista? >> I believe there is a crosswalk, and I don't know if I have a good aerial of it. I believe there's a crosswalk up where the outflow is for Walmart. So, you There's a sidewalk on both sides. >> Yeah. And you can walk up the sidewalk on the one side closest to the project, and then you'd get up to a crosswalk at the entry to >> Cuz I don't think there's a crosswalk there now. There is. Maybe they should paint it a little better. Um okay. And then I had a question about um uh charging stations, and I don't know if this is a question for you, Grace, in terms of sort of requirements for that. It's come up a couple of times. I get that there's plenty of parking, but just wondering about EV charging stations. Sure. So, it's currently not in our code as a requirement for um a per- percentage of them to be EV charging stations. Um since these ones can be owned independently, they could install their own. All right. Maybe I'm thinking like more commercial when we have Yeah. And there are some building requirements. Um I think with the recently adopted building code that have some EV um provisions, but as far as zoning, there's nothing in code yet. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? If not, we will move to deliberation and entertain a motion should one be made. Chair, happy to make a I'm happy to make a motion. Uh in the matter of case number LDC 26-00032, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the tentative map conditional use permit and alternative equivalent compliance subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings. Commissioner Delvear, I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously 4-0. That concludes item C2. >> [clears throat] >> We will move on to item C3. This is a staff report for possible action, case number LDC 26-00053, Coyote Crossing time extension. Miss Mackedon. Good evening, commissioners. Grace Mackedon again. Here to present on the Coyote Crossing time extension. So, this body has seen a few of these recently. I think this is one of those application types that comes in clusters. Uh this particular one is the extension of an approved tentative map that was approved in March of 2022. It was for 33 single-family lots. It's up in um Ward 4 off of Rock Chuck. Um you can see kind of the aerial up on the the left-hand side of your screen. The tentative map was also associated with a major site plan review for cluster development, fills exceeding 10 ft in height, and hillside development. Uh the application request is allowed per NRS. It allows this body to make a 2-year time extension and there's no findings. Um and so, short of anything significantly changing with the laws or rules or regulations, typically we see these time extensions granted. This particular one, the applicant was requesting due to uh delays that resulted from foreclosure hearings. That's ultimately the presentation. Like I said, there's no particular findings with these types of requests. The recommended motion is on your screen. Um the applicant should be on via Zoom, but I'm also available if you have any questions. Uh hearing there will not be an applicant presentation, I will move to disclosures. Commissioner Valteau. Commissioner Valteau, no disclosures. Commissioner Delvear, no disclosures. Commissioner Gonfiantini, no disclosures. Commissioner Jacqueman, no disclosures. Uh Madam Clerk, public comment. I do not have any public comment in person or online. Any requests to speak in chambers? Seeing none, we will close public comment and move to back to the commission. Commissioner Delvear. Commissioner, I feel like I'm Commissioner uh uh >> [laughter] >> Manny today. Um Question, can you help me understand the foreclosure and is that still potentially impacting the ability for this project to move forward or is that been resolved? The let's see. I believe there it was in the letter that was submitted. Um So, they did take uh title of the property on Janu- in January via foreclosure. So, it it sounds like that those proceedings have kind of um concluded. Perfect. That was all That was all I had. Thank you. Commissioner Valteau. I That was actually my question, so thank you for asking about that. I've no questions. Would anyone on the commission like to entertain a motion at this time? I am happy to do so. Please proceed. In the Commissioner Delvear, in the matter of case LDC 26-00053, based upon compliance with NRS 278.360, requirements for presentation of final map or series of final maps, extensions of time, I move to approve a 2-year time extension on the Coyote Crossing tentative map subject to the original conditions of approval. Commissioner Gonfiantini, I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C3. We will now move to our last public hearing item of the evening, item C4. Staff report for possible action, case number LDC 26-00056, Tallas Valley Villages 16A and 16B. For this item, we will begin with a presentation from Mr. Foster. All right. Good evening, planning commissioners. Jeff Foster, associate planner, for the record. >> [snorts] [clears throat] >> Wonder of all wonders, I am not bringing you a major deviation application tonight. Um I did think about telling you that tonight was my last planning commission hearing, but I hadn't told Mike Greely yet, so I will see you in 2 weeks with another major deviation application. >> [laughter] >> All right. Uh the project site is about 18 and 1/2 acres in size. Uh the request before you is a tentative map for 185 units single-family attached or townhome subdivision and associated common areas. Uh the zoning is Tallas Valley planned unit development. And the master plan is suburban mixed-use and there is a sliver of parks, greenways, and open space uh on the eastern boundary and on the screen you can see at least seven goals and policies from the master plan that are in support of the proposed request. So, the proposed units, uh 185, are in planning areas 15 and 16, uh which have multi-family residential and neighborhood commercial PUD land use designations. Uh Village 16A has a uh 81 lots that yield a net density of 27.9 dwelling units per acre. Um this falls within the minimum and maximum net density range of 15 units per acre and 30 units per acre, respectively, in planning area 16, uh required by the PUD handbook. The request, which aims to provide missing middle housing options, features different building configurations for this Village 16A, those 81 lots are arranged in buildings of either three or seven units. While for Village 16B, the 104 units are arranged in building configurations of either four or six units. Those 104 lots yield a net density of 25.9 dwelling units per acre, and a total of approximately 6.19 acres of common area and open space is proposed between the two villages. For Village uh for both villages, the applicant is requesting a 5-ft minimum rear yard setback and that's shown in the areas on the screen, which is allowed per the PUD section 4.4 to address unique housing products. And the front yard and driveway for each Village 16A lot, which is shown here, um is part of a limited common element area owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Here are the recommended findings for a tentative map. Staff can make all recommended findings. Um I do want to point out that there is a proposed condition change, condition number six on the screen, uh which has been updated to add clarity, and engineering has approved the change. Here's the recommended motion. Again, the motion would include the revision to condition number six as proposed on the previous screen. Uh the applicant will now be making a presentation and I am available for questions. Good evening, commissioners. Uh Derek Kirkland with Wood Rogers, representing the applicant, and uh we do have uh representative TL Tallas here tonight, um as well as uh members of our team uh to help me answer any questions that you may have. I'll run through quickly. I don't really have a whole lot um to add to this. I just want to point out um mainly this is part of a PUD. PUD is uh was approved um almost 10 years ago now. Um but we have There's a most of the stuff in here is basically things that we have to do in the PUD. So, all the stuff that you see tonight um is all part of the previous PUD approval um in conformance with that. Um and as we get through some of the final maps, we'll be addressing all the other uh community contributions. Um there's an overall traffic mitigation plan, so we do have uh the overall traffic um in in here, so we'll have still the uh two traffic lights, uh one on Veterans, one on South Meadows. Um we're still making all the connections with the shared use path. Um and then we do have all the uh kind of the connections which also go to the existing surrounding schools. Um and I'll just touch real quickly on on parking. And so, each of these units uh in both Village A and B have full-size driveways, full-size garages, so um basically each unit has um four totals uh four total spaces. Plus, we've added in both villages um additional off-street parking to address larger vehicles and or uh guest parking, which is kind of unique. When you see a lot of these, you don't see that. But they did want to make sure um as a selling point really is to make sure there's plenty of parking um for this subdivision. Um I think Jeff did a good job talking about this. All the exteriors of both villages will be maintained by the HOA. So basically when you purchase this, you're purchasing the basically the interior of the of the unit. You're still purchasing the lot, but basically the HOA will maintain most of the exterior including the driveways. And then the will be these will be two-story units. In 16A, these are typical where you enter through the front. The front door is in the front of the building. The side units you enter through the side. These will have >> [snorts] >> more private backyards. And then in 16B, these are actually the same thing. You enter through the sides on the side units. And then you actually go around and there'll be a as you can see in the site plan here on 16B. Basically they'll have sidewalks and entryways through the rear part of the building which is actually the front of the building. With the driveway access as well from the public streets. None of these are private streets. They're all public streets with driveways. And with that, I think that was pretty much all I wanted to add. And so with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. We will now go to disclosures. Commissioner Velt. Commissioner Velt familiar with the site and I think I walked the site at some point. Commissioner Del VR written received and read materials and I am familiar with the site. Commissioner Gampentini written and reviewed materials. Commissioner Jacquemin phone call with Mr. Kirkland and prior conversation with members of the representative team. I think it was two months ago or roughly. So that's it. Additional disclosure, I also communicate with the applicant prior to the meeting. That now closes our disclosures. Madam Clerk, public comment. I do not have any public comment in person and we do not have any hands raised online. Any requests to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, that we will now close public comment for this item and move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Del VR. Thanks for your rise. Can somebody walk me through the flood mitigation? I I drove by there today coincidentally with my real estate agent and she was like, "Oh gosh, I would I wouldn't want to sell here because it's always flooded and they're going to need flood insurance." She's going on and on. So I just want to understand what the flood mitigation is and what that potentially means for either the HOA or the homeowners. Thank you. Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. So basically with the PUD, it was um you know, obviously the PUD approval process went on for several years and that was a big point of contention and and something that we worked really hard to address. So we have a FEMA basically we have a CLOMAR conditional letter of map revision that went through FEMA and the city and all those fun steps. And generally where we landed on is that a lot of the green area along Veterans becomes part of this flood storage. And it was was all part of there was a big modeling effort that was done. There was a whole regional flood model that was going on. We used that and built onto that and then added 25% capacity. The PUD requires 25% capacity in those areas to accommodate the flood and basically a level of protection. And so that is built into the PUD. And so all these tentative maps have to comply with that the CLOMAR. So what you see what you see up there what you see now with all the mass grading, that none of that could have even taken place until basically the CLOMAR was done. And we have in the PUD there's a whole basically map that shows you kind of where the proposed flood zone is and basically where a lot of that mitigation takes place. So yeah, so all the mass grading that you see out there right now is accommodating that flood storage. And then I'm just curious about the roundabouts what do they call them here? Traffic circles, whatever they're called. I noticed them across the way in the Lenar area and I'm just kind of curious as to is that supposed to slow traffic, help traffic? I thought I see it there it is. Yeah, and so there's Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. So there is series of of roundabouts. A lot of it A lot of it was built into that master PUD traffic plan with the signals and the roundabouts and just improving the flow through here. A lot of it too with some of these close intersection spacing. They're protected rights in and rights out. So the roundabouts allow them to kind of go in and make turn movements and it's just it's overall improves access for the overall development. Okay. I just people here don't really know how to use those, but hopefully they'll get used to it. >> [laughter] >> Thank you. That's all I had. Commissioner Jacquemin, I'll ask one question of staff. So condition 11 requires them to complete the intersection improvements at South Meadows and Echo Valley prior to the first CFO. The The improvements are there any improvements coming at the Veterans intersection prior to this tentative map going forward? So I believe you guys have Okay. I'm going to I'm going to defer to Wood Rogers staff on that. But the the conditions that you the condition 11 that you see has been a condition on all of the previous Tallas Valley tentative maps in this part of the development. So it's just kind of perpetuating that. Good evening. Shawnee Dunnigan, Wood Rogers engineer on the project. So the traffic signal is actually almost already permitted. The South Meadows one is permitted. The Veterans is in the final stages. And so they're actually working on kind of construction constructing all the backbone and all both of those signals will be active two years? A year and a half? Early next year. So they'll be in place before this is open. Thank you. I have one I have one more question and that might be for you. The is the traffic I know that it's going there's a light going on to Veterans. There's no light if you're going north Veterans, you can't turn left in in into the complex. Can we bring that picture back up? Sorry. Now I have to figure this out. Okay, let me go back to the intersections. I think it would be on the advisor's presentation. Sorry. Nope, you're good. Yes, so like where it said Town Center that was Um this So there's no there's no traffic light at Town Center Parkway across Veterans. Like no left-hand turn lane if you're going north on Veterans and no left turn. >> There will be a signal at Veterans and Town Center Parkway if that's where you're referring. So if you're on Town Center Parkway, you can go left and head north on Veterans Parkway. So it'll be like a T intersection. >> Okay. >> So it'll be stop lights on three all three sides. Okay, so there will be there will be a traffic light on Veterans going north. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Hearing none, we will move to deliberations. And entertain a motion should one be made. Would you mind putting the motion back on the screen? I know there was a change from the perfect. In the matter of case number LDC 26-00056 based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the tentative map subject to the conditions listed in the staff report as revised. I and I can make all the findings. Commissioner Gampentini, I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C4. As discussed in the approval of the agenda for tonight's meeting, we are postponing item C5 as we do not have enough commissioners to vote on that item. We will now move to item D, business items. Anything from staff? Nothing this evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item E, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. Commissioner Gampentini, would you like to give this one or should I give the update? We had a We had a meeting that was canceled. It We will be using the reserve date which is April 6th. I do not actually know if the agenda has posted for that, but if not, it should be within the next day or two. That will be held at the I believe at the RTC at 6:00 p.m. Monday, April 6th. There have not been any other meetings since our prior city meeting. Item F, future agenda items, Mr. O'Reilly. None none from staff. Item G, public comment, Madam Clerk. I do not have any public comment for this item. Seeing as though there is nobody in chambers, that concludes this item. We will move to item H for adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjourn? So moved. I'll second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in All in say I. Meeting Meeting adjourned.