He's on. All right. Well, with that, I guess we'll call to order the April 2nd Planning Commission hearing. Um, shall we start with the pledge of allegiance? David, lead us. to the flag. All right. Thank you. Uh we'll go to attendance. Chair Roier here. Vice Chair Villinoea absent at this time. Commissioner Bisera here. Commissioner Delvr here. Commissioner Williams here. Commissioner Jockman here. Commissioner Belto here. I think I heard a faint here. There we have a quorum here. Sorry. Can you can you hear me now? Yeah, we can hear you. It's still a little faint, but yes. Um, all right. Great. We uh just to give everyone in the chambers a little heads up, we're going to change the order of some of the items on the agenda. Um, and that's because we have our legal staff um, has some timing issues in regarding a conflict of interest and whatnot. So, we are going to hear after we go through public comment, we're going to go here with Need to Speed, then we'll go to Grand Sierra, then we'll go to Starbucks, and then Stonegate and Ranchera. So, just a heads up for those who are here. Um, now we will open the public comment. This is uh public comment for either any item agendaized or any general public comment. Um if you have public comment for anything, you do need to fill out the orange request to speak form. If you're online, you of course can raise your hand as well. Uh but we will start with public comment in the chambers. Do we have anyone wishing to speak? Chair, I'm going to read the language into the record just for a second. Thank you. Uh 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.renino.gov/capp planning04-02-25. It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Um, we did receive correspondence for this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. Thank you. All right. Would you like to offer some public comment? Yeah. Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Emily Allen. I live at 1930 Lassen Avenue. Um, and I'm here to talk about the potential of shared ownership to address the economic challenges facing our community. We are all familiar with the challenges facing the US economy. Stagnant wages, rising costs, especially housing costs, wealth inequality, a possible oncoming recession. Most of us, however, are less familiar with the set of impactful and self- sustaining shared ownership solutions that other cities including Denver, Madison, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati have begun implementing. So there are three major buckets of shared ownership solutions. The first is community ownership of real estate. Second is employee ownership of businesses. The third is business and community ownership of shared services. And with Reno already facing pressure on affordable housing and aging business ownership. These models offer a local solution that put assets back in the hands of our community members. The resulting impacts include community wealth building, resilient local businesses, and improved housing affordability. Today I'll focus on community ownership of real estate and then briefly touch on the other two buckets. So there are multiple models of community ownership of real estate. The first is a model the city is actually already familiar with um which is community land trusts or neighborhood trusts such as the community housing land trust administered by our community foundation. In this model, a trust often managed by a nonprofit owns real estate on behalf of the community and maintains housing affordability. This model can also be used for commercial properties in Philadelphia. Kensington Corridor Trust is a community controlled real estate entity that owns and manages 30 residential and commercial properties, keeping rents low for both local residents and businesses. Another model is housing or resident owned cooperatives where individual residents of apartment buildings or mobile home parks come together to buy the building or the land that they are renting to own and manage it cooperatively. Rock USA is a national nonprofit that has supported the transition of over 300 mobile home communities to resident owned communities, preserving almost 24,000 affordable housing units. As you evaluate housing and land use proposals, I urge you to recognize shared ownership, especially housing co-ops and land trusts as viable, scalable tools to deliver permanent affordable housing and community stability. Community-owned real estate can operate alongside employee owned businesses and business and community owned shared services to build stronger, more resilient communities. Employee ownership models, including employee stock ownership plans or ESOPs, worker cooperatives and employee ownership trusts offer viable exit strategy for retiring business owners and create benefits for workers, businesses, and communities. Finally, uh business and community ownership of shared services allow small businesses and nonprofits who are struggling with rising operate operational costs to achieve better economies of scale and more efficient use of resources. I asked the planning commission and city council to recommend a study on cooperative housing and consider zoning updates that support shared ownership models as part of future planning updates. Please reach out to me if you're interested in learning more. Thank you very much. Is there any other public comment? Looks like we might have a few on Zoom. Um Lynn, if you're ready to speak, should we Let's finish the ones in chambers if that's okay. Yeah, sure. Please make sure you fill out the comment card. I did. Oh, okay. Put it in the basket over there. Okay. make sure it's a general public comment. For anyone wishing to make public comment tonight, please make sure you write the item you wish to speak under. Um, just going forward. Uh, good evening. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh, thank you for my for my time tonight and, uh, thank you for your community service. My name is Mike Melo. I live in Ranchera. Um, just for reference, I'm a a Ford tour Vietnam veteran. and I'm here to talk about Ranchera. Uh this PUD amendment is confusing. I went through it several times and um the emphasis seems to be on unit reduction from 722 units to 469 units, but that's in a onem radius. Now wordly what we're talking about here um is we're referring to a 7 acre lot which is a final infill project in Ranchera but all the what we're really talking about in the on the card that I got is removing references to equestrian and writing facilities and those sorts of things without mention without any mention to the the lot that they want to amend. Uh the planners want to stuff 29 lots into the seven acres which gives us a lot size of around 5200 square ft. And the size of those lots would be the smallest in Ranchera. We currently have 59 homes being scheduled to be built on lot 7 which is 12 acres. Those lots are 800 8850 square ft and the homes are small. The issue with lot 8 going from 7 acres, excuse me, from seven uh seven 7 acre seven 1acre lots to 29 is lot 7 is right in the middle of the custom home section of Ranchera. So there's multi-million dollar homes on either side. Uh looks like there's one being built right now that's 7,000 square ft. Um something along those lines and u these homes are, you know, multi-million dollar homes. Uh, I think it's unfair uh to the people who have sunk their hard-earned money uh into their dream homes and end up with homes right next door that are potentially a third the size of the homes that they built. Um, in the um in the town hall, the developers said that um they wanted to get out of rancher. they've been there too long. And um we um we hope that we can come to some sort of a compromise, some sort of a of a workable uh plan. Maybe we take those those those lots, make them, you know, halfacre lots, something along those lines, so that nice homes can be built, people can be proud of what they have, and um everybody would be happy. Y Thank you. You mentioned there are people online wishing to speak. Lynn, when you're ready, you can unmute yourself. Uh, state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Audio. Okay. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Lynn. Oh, good. Okay. This is in regards to need to speed and I just want to know um how loud their music their outdoor music is going to be. Uh can they promise to keep the volume down when they are open no matter what time of day or what day of the week it is. We're directly across the street from them. There are homes be or apartments behind them. Uh homes on the west side of 395 and I face that portion where they're going to open Need to Speed. So I would like to know that if I have a barbecue and people over that we won't be blasted out by Need to Speed. Um thank you. Thank you. believe we have one more attendee. Um, Art, when you are ready, you can unmute yourself, state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Art, go ahead and unmute yourself. Oh, okay. There it is. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Okay. Uh, for the record, Art Rangel, 255 North Sierra Street, and I'm speaking on item 4.2 on tonight's planning commission agenda. The location of the proposed UNR basketball stadium concert venue is ideal as a catalyst entertainment venue for the following two reasons. First, from a city planning perspective, as a high vehicle trip generation land use, it is situated at the intersection of two major freeways and adjacent to the air airport, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled. If a 300 unit workforce housing is built in the future, it would reduce employee vehicle trips and could provide much needed affordable housing. The enclosed arena would be situated away from sensitive residential land uses relative to noise and glare. The second reason is from an economic development perspective, the project could generate significant tax increment for redevelopment project area 2. If the hotel is eventually built based on the initial draft tenure performer, the project could could eventually generate almost $90 million in annual taxable sales and room rental tax by 2036. Teaming with UNR, which in my opinion is a premier Northern Nevada institution, is a win for both the city and UNR. A comprehensive evaluation of the draft and future performer is needed, especially given the five-year gap between phase one and two, but this is not within the authority of the planning commission. This project is an example of smart growth. I'm hopeful the issues raised by RTC, INDOT, and the airport can be easily resolved. I encourage the commission to approve the cup so that the project can move on to the redevelopment agency advisory board to evaluate the forthcoming reform. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have anyone else on Zoom with their hand raised. Um I believe you have Katherine's request to speak form for this item. Okay. Uh Katherine Schmidt. Good evening. I'm here as a longtime Reno resident and Reno High School neighbor. I walk between Foster Drive, the River, Raies, and Village Shopping Center regularly, and my three sons graduated from Reno High School. As I walk, I pick up litter constantly on these streets, and I love the neighborhood because it is walkable. I'm here tonight to log my opposition to the drive-thru Starbucks proposed for the corner of Boo Street and Foster Drive because it does not meet Reno code is not in keeping with the master plan and will negatively impact our neighborhood. The reimagined Reno master plan which included so much public input clearly reflects the mission of prioritizing safe walkable neighborhoods. From the master plan, the purpose of the neighborhood commercial district is intended to promote a mix of pedestrianoriented commercial retail services and housing options. Guiding principle 4.4 of the master plan is to encourage the creation of walkable neighborhood centers that provide a variety of services and amenities. Throughout the master plan, there is a focus on increasing multimodal transportation and safe pedestrian and bicycle access. Drive-throughs are carentric. They're not designed to encourage community and they're a danger to those on foot or bike. Additionally, the Annexation and Land Development Code Chapter 18.03 Article 4 accessory units and structures part F says that in multi-use districts, drive-th through food service shall only be permitted east of I80 or within one quarter mile of a freeway off-ramp. This location is more than a mile from the freeway and is in a wellestablished older southwest neighborhood. Although I prefer local business, my objection is not with the corporate Starbucks. My objection is to the poorly placed drive-thru plans for several reasons. One, the Starbucks is just a little uh a mile away from other two two other drive-thru Starbucks, and it's more they're more appropriately located within a quarter mile of the freeway at Keystone. Additionally, there is already a drive-through coffee shop in the village shopping center. We don't need another drive-thru. theo and secondly the sec the supposed 11 stacked spots do not meet requirements as they block the parking spaces that are on that small lot. And thirdly, there are students walking all over this area in the morning, during lunch hour, and after school. Adding a drive-thru to the congestion there is not smart or safe. Fourth, I'm concerned about the negative impacts of more idling cars, litter, and car traffic in an already congested intersection during school hours. What I hope the planning commission will consider is approval of a walk walk-in Starbucks like the one at Plum in Arlington. That would be more appropriate for this space. I requested denial of the proposed drive-thru um because it is not in keeping with the master plan or Reno code. This would prioritize safety of the residents, commuters parents bicyclists and students, and closely align with code. It would help us develop the safe, walkable neighborhoods envisioned in the master plan. Thank you. Thank you. I do not have any more request to speak forms. Great. Thank you. Is anybody who's entered the chambers looking to speak under public comment? Okay, we'll close public comment and move to the development hearings. Um, we're going to start with need to speed uh with presentation from staff expedited. That's just as we're um considering that. Does uh the board want to handle this one in an expedited matter? Yay. One. Yay. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Sounds good. Okay. Yes. That would be uh universal. So, we will forgo the presentation and um open it up to public comment for anyone wishing. We had one public comment on need to speed for anyone else wishing to speak on this item. I simply want to uh address the um public comments. I'm Chris Hutgard, president. Need the speed. Uh there was concern about the noise levels. We're only going to have uh music on the patio to basically try and drone out the uh the noise from the highway there. So, uh but we want it to be a conversational space and anyone on the west side of 395, I doubt we'll even hear the music. So, that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any questions from the commission? Uh Commissioner Mer, just a comment. Uh I think the reason why we're expediting this is because it's a clerical matter. um all the other findings have been addressed in the past and so we wanted to be judicious with our time especially since it's a full night. Um so I just wanted to say that right seeing no questions from the commission Cali can you please confirm that we don't have anybody on Zoom under public comment for this item? We do not have anyone on Zoom with their hand raised. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. All right seeing no more questions from the board. Is anybody interested in discussion? Okay, I'll make a motion. Perfect. Sure. Um, Kelly or whomever, can I get a motion on the screen, please? Or you want I can make it if you up based uh Commissioner Jockman, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the amendment to the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. All in second. Second. reserve. I I I Any opposed? Project approved. All right, moving on. Uh we are going to hear the Grand Sierra Resort Arena. Um again to accommodate our legal staff, we will start with a presentation from staff. All right. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, I'm Nathan Gilbert, principal planner with the development services department, presenting LDC 258, Grand Sierra Resort Arena. Uh the request is for a conditional use permit to allow for a multi-purpose sports arena, building height greater than 85 ft in the mixeduse urban zone, and amusement recreation outside, which would be activation of a proposed public plaza space. The 28 acre project area is located on the northern portion of the 140 acre Grand Sierra Resort property, uh bounded by East Second Street to the north, Mil Street to the south, I580 to the west, and the Truckucky River, and Greg Street to the east. A little bit of background on the property. It opened originally as the MGM Grand in 1978. At least according to the postcards at the time, it was the largest casino in the world. In 1981, expansions included an additional 26story wing, which is generally the hotel footprint that we're familiar with today. Over the years, there have been several changes to ownership and branding of the property from MGM valleys, the Hilton to the GSR. And there have been numerous entitlements approved for property amenities and property expansions like the aqua golf, the outdoor amusement area, ice rink, etc. Uh, currently the site is zoned mixeduse urban with the gaming overlay. Um that's the highintensity um zoning district and the gaming overlay facilitates the non-restricted hotel casino type of operation. Uh there is about slightly over 1% of the property is own general commercial. It's kind of a leftover on East Second Street and that's where the uh the go-karts are currently and the um sports bar that is not part of the application. Master plan land use is urban mixed use and there are numerous supporting policies for the request including arts and outdoor recreation tourism, urban revitalization, priority locations for infill and redevelopment, underutilized properties, coordination with the Reno Parks Indian Colony, parking structures, complete streets, and provision of community amenities. Uh overview of the project. Uh primarily this is a 295,000q ft 10,000 seat multi-purpose arena 45,000 ft 500 seat connected ice rink. an eight-level parking garage with 2,800 spaces and that central plaza area uh called the fan zone in between the parking area, the arena uh and connecting to the hotel property as well as the associated surface parking lot and site improvements on the northern portion of the site. Uh there's an east west orientation to building design with court level 19 ft below the main concourse or the hotel level. of the arena height is about 118 feet with the attached north facing rank ice rink at 58 feet. Uh given the centralized location and connectivity to the 27story hotel uh generally support the increase in the the standard 85 uh foot height cap in the mixeduse urban zone. Also 33% of the street facing facade is transparent glazing and code would require 25% minimum. Uh as far as building orientation, the mixeduse urban zone encourages development uh to be facing the primary street, but it does allow for exceptions in 1804 uh provided that the project provides enhanced landscaping on that primary street, direct pedestrian access, and enhanced pedestrian amenities above and beyond what's required. Uh, so that would be enhanced landscaping along the East Second Street, and they're proposing a six-foot um pedestrian access leading directly to that public closet space in the arena entrance. Additional East Second Street improvements include uh undergrounding of the existing overhead power lines. There' be about 800 new trees and associated ground cover with this portion. um 1% of project costs are allocated to pedestrian amenities as a requirement in the mixed east zone which is substantial at a project of this scale. Um plaza fan zone uh would be used to host pregame events and special activities. It's included in this cup so they don't have to come back for special activity permits if they're going to have a pep rally before a game, things like that. uh code doesn't consider uh freeway orientation as a frontage, but it does require that truck loading areas are adequately screened from the public rideway. There are about six plus uh loading bays proposed facing the freeway and condition number five ensures compliance with the loading area screening requirements along the freeway viewshed with landscape enhancements. Uh this is a graphic sent by the applicant. Condition five will ensure that that uh uh coverage is is the length of the viewshed. Access to the site is via East 2nd Street, Mil Street, and Greg Street. A preliminary traffic impact analysis um estimates 2600 peak hour trips arriving and 186 peak hour trips uh departing. These assumptions are at full arena capacity, that's the full 10,000, and theater occupancy at 3,000. during the peak hour and is roughly estimated to occur at seven seven times per year depending on the event. Uh conditions number seven through eight are based on NDOT, RTC, Reno Sparks, Indian Colony and public works feedback. Uh we reviewed several iterations of proposed mitigations meeting collaborative collaboratively uh with the agency's uh condition seven and eight are the proposed uh mitigations. They will need to be further fleshed out in a final traffic impact analysis prior to arena permitting. The concept uh is the permanent directional lane use alterations and off-ramps Mil Street and Second Street and a right turn lane on East Second Street. Can you move to the next slide? I don't have any giddy up left. Thank you. Um the concept uh this concept as proposed in condition would alleviate the need for event related street management and permitting which which was a major concern from uh staff and endot and it maintains the bus stop actually a little closer to the u crosswalk leading to the uh Reno Sparks Indian Colony commercial center. Uh condition number 13 requires RTC coordination to ensure adequate continuous service during construction. Uh there are three bus RTC bus lines that uh run along East Second Street and one actually goes onto the GSR property. All improvements of course are subject to NDOT approval and permitting. And condition number six ensures that all 2386 new parking spaces are fully operational prior to a certificate of occupancy for the arena. Uh the project is estimated to increase sanitary sewer flows by about 169,000 gallons per day to the Truckucky Meadows uh uh wastewater waste reclamation facility. There is adequate uh treatment capacity at Dwarf. Uh condition number nine addresses the relocation of a 39in sewer interceptor. You can see the existing line in red which is going to run uh right right under the uh proposed parking garage. that'll need to be relocated in the alignment shown in green uh prior to any any uh permitting for the garage use. The conditions number 10 through 12 address easements, maintenance, access, and approvals of that final sewer bypass plan. Uh staff analysis of findings. The uses allowed with an approved cup. The mixeduse gaming zone supports highintensity development, higher floor area ratios. Conditions 7 through eight and 13 help mitigate traffic and transit issues. Uh the use meets all standards. Parking the the updated code parking, lighting, and landscaping standards. Public services and utilities are in place. Conditions 9 through13 address utility infrastructure concerns. Uh, it's primarily an indoor operation consistent with the MU gaming zone and destination hotel property and there would be no or minimal noise, smoke, odor, dust, or vibrations um once established. Staff's recommended uh motion for approval is on your screen and I'm available for any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. We'd like to hear from the applicant. Thank you, Madame Chair and members of the commission. For the record, my name is Andrew D. I'm a senior vice president with Mel Gaming, which owns and operates the Grand Sierra. Um, I want to start this presentation tonight first by thanking all the staff that have worked on this project. Um, Mr. Gilbert, thank you, and everybody else at the city of Reno. Um, this is going to be a transformative investment into our community and I'm proud to stand before you today to talk about it. Um, I'm going to give you a brief overview. I I think a lot of you know, you know, the general idea um, behind the arena. It's phase one of what is going to be a 10-year investment by our ownership into bringing this property into life. If you all heard in 1978 when this property opened, it was the largest hotel and casino in the world right here in Reno. And what we are going to be doing over the next decade is just adding to that legacy. Um phase one is going to be the arena in the parking garage. We are then going to move on to the lake. We're going to have an aqua golf out there. We're going to be doing workforce housing, 300 units um that will be go to our team members. Um, we think it's a great location that is right along the Truckucky River. It's going to bring the river to life. That's important to us. Embracing that our property has never done a good job of embracing the fact that we are right along the shores of the Truckucky River. Um, so, but getting back to the actual arena, um, this is a view of what it's going to look like when you're traveling on 395. You can see the nice blue sapphire color. It's we are really embracing our partnership with the University of Nevada with this project moving forward. and we are so lucky to have them as partners. Um the um this is what it's going to look like for the new home of the Wolfpack. Um I have gone to games the Lawler Event Center my entire life and while I have a lot of good memories there, I don't think it's going to compare with what the experience that the fans are going to be able to have at this new arena. We're going to be able to have over 10,000 fans there. Um it's going to be a first class experience. And the other thing that this arena is going to allow us to do is attract other big sporting events. We are in the midst of the NCAA tournament. The final four is this weekend. While we are not a big enough venue to host the final four, we are a big enough venue to host the first and second rounds of the NCAA tournament. And I have no doubt that we will attract those games here in Reno because we have built this arena to NCAA specifications. And the NCAA loves a destination city like Reno because we have the hotel inventory to accommodate all the fan bases coming here into our community. And we cannot wait until this is open in 2027. Um this is a mockup of what it's going to look like uh for concerts. Um we we do entertainment is what we do at the Grand Sier. I think all of you are probably familiar with the Grand Theater. That's a 30,000 seat venue. Um, we had to up our game to compete with the Northern California tribal gaming properties. They have all built and invested significant amounts of money into entertainment venues and we have to keep giving our guests a reason to keep driving over the hill and visit Reno. And this arena is going to accomplish that. Um, that that is uh end of stage setup. We will have center court setups, if you will. you'll be able to get a little more people in there, but we're going to be able to attract um some of the top names in entertainment to come right here to Reno. Um this is what it's going to look like when you walk from the main casino floor into the arena itself, the main concourse. This is another view from the same area where the casino is towards your back and you're looking forward out to where the uh event venue is going to be. Um, and one of the enhancements over the current Lawler Event Center that this is going to have is lots of FNB uh options for the guests that are attending a show or a basketball game there. Um, so this is one of um the mini suites. We're going to have eight mini suites in addition to full-size suites, which is this. We're going to be around 25 or so full size suites. Um, and it's really enhancing um the experience of the venue. Um, we're also really excited to be building as part of this development and and part of the cup application is a uh 500 seat community ice rink. Um, we have seen the success of Reno Ice and South Reno. Um, we have developed a very close partnership with them and we're looking forward to unveiling more about that in the future. Um, but to enhance the ice offerings here in the community, um, we are going to be doing our 500 seat venue. um you know, youth hockey leagues, we're going to be running those. We have a lot of experience doing that in Arizona already, and we cannot wait to bring it here to the community. Um and then here's a mockup of the parking garage. You all know that there is a significant parking requirement attached um to the arena. It's required by code. Um this parking garage is going to be um the numbers we are at right now 2,835 stalls. Um the arena itself requires 2300 seats. So we exceed the code requirement um with the parking garage and it's going to bring our overall total parking capacity at the Grand Grand Sierra over a thousand parking spots over what is required by code. We're also gaining surface lots um where the current go-karts are located and the the swing on the corner. All that is going to be developed into surface parking for the project. Um there are going to be speed ramps there. Um and so these are some of the things. Um I don't know if staff is able to pull up. I submitted a heat map from the university of where their season ticket holders live and if we could pull that up. It's I think it's important to talk about that. Um if not I will I can put it on the screen. [Applause] I have a hard copy here if you guys want to. We're looking into it just a moment. Okay. What he's referring to came in an email a few hours ago. Okay. I I do have a hard copy if you guys are able to just pull up the overhead. Okay, pull up the overhead. Go ahead and place it on the overhead. [Music] Okay, looks like you all can see that. So, I wanted to share this with you because I I think it's important to make the distinction about the different types of events that we are going to have at the arena. We're going to have events that are going to bring in a lot of out oftowners and we're going to have events that bring in a lot of the local members of the community. So for out of town events, I'm thinking concerts on a busy Friday, Saturday night, you're going to have people coming in from Northern California to attend a specific show. And a number of those people are already going to be on property. So you're not going to have the huge surge prior to the show starting and after it lets out of a lot of vehicle traffic um coming and going from the property. Um, but for a local event, such as a Nevada basketball game, you can see the the red and the orange colored areas is where you have the season ticket holders living. And you can they're predominantly in um West Reno, Old Southwest, that area. Um, I myself live in this part of town and I drive to work at GSR every day. And I do not get on the freeway. I I take Plum down to Kitsky and Kitsky over to Mill and then I'm at work. And my guess is that a lot of the people that live in this area are going to be doing the same thing. You are going to have people coming in off of the freeway, probably off of that Mill Street exit and the second street exit to the north of the property coming from South Reno, but also from Northwest Reno and Sparks and Spanish Springs. Um but but I wanted to highlight this because I I do think the majority of people who are coming to a to a local event like the basketball game are not going to be using the freeway. Um we all take great pride in living in a 20-minute city like Reno and we want to make sure that um we we keep the character of Reno and how quickly we're able to make it from one side of town to the other um as part of that project. So, with that, I will make myself available. I'll be here for questions, but I wanted to bring up um Stephanie Remp, who is the athletic director for the University of Nevada, and she wanted to share a few comments with you, and then after Stephanie, Mr. Chilson, who is our traffic engineer, is going to come up on specifics on traffic. So, thank you. All right. Good evening. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. So, um, we are thrilled about the opportunity to be able to participate and play in an arena and a venue of this magnitude. It will be an absolute game-changing experience for not only our student athletes, our basketball program, but our entire university. And so, we're excited about it. Um, one of the pieces that we wanted to address is about the students. And so, um, we are committed to getting our students to these games. College athletics is very much about students and the band and all of those types of things. So, it's important to our university and to the members that come and to the fans that come to the games that our students are involved. So, we are working with the Grand Sierra as well as our um institution about how we're going to bus our students there. So, we want to make sure that they have transportation that it's a positive experience um and so that we have an active bus flow. We've been working with the designers of the arena to make sure it's a it's an easy flow to drop off and exit, drop off and exit as well as the picking up. So, I'm happy to answer any questions about how we are going to take advantage of this opportunity as well as the experience that it'll have for our fans and our student athletes if you have any questions. Good evening. Lauren Chilson, principal and traffic engineer with GCW. Just want to let you know that we are uh providing a comprehensive traffic study meeting NDOT standards that's being reviewed by the city RTC Ringo Parks Indian Colony uh all of which agencies are providing comments and we're addressing uh we put a lot of work into the study. It's it's a it's a goodiz project. Um but the the magic is is served by two interchanges right off the freeway and so we do have capacity. Um the study is for full attendance in the 10,000 seat arena uh plus full attendance in the amp and sorry in the in the grand theater. Uh that's a that's a very conservative condition. Um but nonetheless we want to make sure we've covered and so the study um does cover that scenario. The project is served as been mentioned by a 2800 space parking garage located on the north side of the property off of Glendale. Therefore the primary access to the project is Glendale. uh and the and that off-ramp. Uh acknowledging though that traffic will be coming from Mil Street as well and those assignments are all made in the traffic study. Uh NDOT has been through uh with us a couple rounds of the traffic study at this point. We're now making the final uh changes and hopefully this this version that'll go in very soon is the final, I hope. Uh but we are getting close and we're working very collaborative having multiple conversations with with a variety of agencies um and working out those details. One of the things that has come up um through the studies is the Mil Street uh off-ramp uh from 580. And I'll put this on the overhead if you'll let me out there, [Applause] please. I just want to note that um the concept being submitted in the in this traffic study version that will go in within the next couple weeks does include a lengthened uh pocket on the right hand side of the roadway there, the through and right turn lane. We intend to lengthen that out to 500 ft and install Q detection loops and that's just to make sure that that ramp which already has a fair amount of traffic on it doesn't back up on the freeway. This has been a recurring theme and so I just want to let you know we are addressing that. Condition number seven of the uh conditions of approval does require that we complete this process with NDOT, take care of permitting, get the traffic study approved before um building permits. We absolutely recognize that and we're taking care of that. So, um not an uncommon condition to have it on a project this big when we've got to deal with endot and federal highways. So, appreciate the flexibility in that, but we will absolutely get it done and I'm also available for questions at the time. All right. Thank you. Um disclosure. Now, we'll go to disclosures. Let's start with Commissioner Bisera. Sure. Uh goodness, I'll just have to remember. Um let's see. I met with the applicant. Uh read and reviewed material. I'm very familiar with the the site itself. Um I spoke with the Reno Spark Seeding Colony. And um yeah, that's it. Commissioner Delvr, I am familiar with the site. Um, I've read and received and read the information and I did go to the Elite 8 basketball game this weekend, so it'd be interesting if they were here. Um, I think that's it. All right. Commissioner Roar Meer, I spoke with the applicant and familiar with the site. Commissioner Williams, I've had a phone conversation with the applicant and have read the provided material and am familiar with the project. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, uh, spoke with the applicant and member of the applicants team. Okay. And Commissionerto, uh, Commissioner Alto spoke with the applicants representative and am familiar with the site. Great. Thank you. Now, we'll open this to public comment. Anyone wishing to speak on the Grand Sierra Resort Arena? We do have an attendant on Zoom with their hand raised. Um Kathy, when you're ready, please unmute your mic. Uh state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Kathy, whenever you're ready. Kathy, when you're ready, you can unmute your mic. You'll have three minutes. Just hit that unmute button. Okay, we also have Rebecca. Rebecca, if you're ready, you can unmute your mic. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Can you hear me yet? Oh my gosh. We could hear you, Kathy. There's some um echo there. Oh, I know. That's because that's because I'm about as familiar with this stuff as whatever. Okay, go ahead. We can hear you. You have three minutes anyway. Anyway, I don't have to holler. I'm sorry. I got a loud voice. Um anyway, about this GSR, the way they uh are pumping sunshine up everybody's, you know, whatever. Um the traffic is not going to allow all of this stuff. It's already crazy as it is. Are they going to widen Mil Street? Are they going to widen the other roads? What can I say? Why don't you spend the money on a Why don't you spend the money on a on a um amusement park out by Fernley where the whole family can go instead of this? That's my question. Let's have some amusement parks instead of going to Florida or California because at least then way you have traffic. Of course, then they have to widen I80 all the way out there. Anyway, anyway, bye bye bye. Now shut this damn thing off. Thank you. Okay, I think we've got Rebecca. Rebecca, when you're ready, unmute your mic. You'll have three minutes. Rebecca, do you not wish to speak under this item? If so, please lower your hand. Okay, did it work? We can hear you. Okay. Hi, you guys. Thank you for hearing us. Um, I think my concern is probably about the same as everybody else in the city in this vicinity at this point in time is how is this being funded? Uh, I keep we keep saying that the taxpayers are going to have to pay for this. Um, and that is a huge concern because, you know, if we got to pay our bills, we got to have our money. Like if they want to do this, they should have the funds and this should not be put on taxpayers. Um, so I'm wondering if this is actually happening and they're going to want the taxpayers to pay for this or if they have a funding plan in place. Thank you. Thank you, Rebecca. I do not have anyone else in Zoom with their hand raised at this time. All right. And seeing no one in chambers, we'll close public comment and we can open it for the board to ask questions of staff or the applicant. Who'd like to start? Commissioner Biser love to kick it off. Why not? Um I guess we'll let's start with the funding question just to kind of level set. Maybe it's for staff. Uh Mike, for clarity, we're not concerned with funding this evening for this project. Or are we? That's correct. The funding for the project is outside the purview of the planning commission and is not associated with the request before you tonight. Thank you, sir. All right, game on. Um I think maybe let's get let's get the uh the applicant up here. Mr. Mr. Disc just I I I think uh Miss Stephanie mentioned that uh there was going to be a shuttle service which is great. I I guess I was curious will this shuttle service be for game days only or service made available perhaps you know week long for students and families to uh enjoy other parts of the GSR experience. Answer this on behalf of resort. Um, Commissioner Bisera, at this point in time, it's for game days. If if a need arises, um, we're more than happy to take a look and see if it makes sense on days outside of game days. Fantastic. And we'll stick with the theme of recreation and kind of amenities. Uh, I think the ice rink is a cool thing, too. Uh, will the ice rink be made available to uh or accessible to local youth, schools, and the general public as well? Absolutely. That that is our intent. That's the whole reason behind building it. Excellent. All right. Got a few more, but uh I'm going to pass the puck or ball or whatever to my fellow commissioners. Sure. Uh Commissioner Jockman. So, uh question about traffic, I guess, for the um traffic engineer on the project. Uh condition number seven, obviously we don't have an accepted traffic impact study. Um our job is in part to make the findings and this ultimately punts it towards the um permit for vertical construction. Um one of the parts of condition 7 states additional traffic mitigations may be required prior to acceptance. That's a an open-ended item that that could require a lot on the applicant side or and I guess this a question for both of you, but are you comfortable with the phrasing for that given that it is in flux? Yeah, we we fully Lauren Chilson for the record. We we fully recognize that we've got to finish this traffic study. We've got to get it through federal highways. We've got to get it through NDOT. I believe we will. We've had really good conversations and yes, we fully acknowledge the the the condition, the terms of it that we've got to get this thing to the finish line with permitting and we understand the we understand the conditions of that. Absolutely. Great. Thank you. I yield. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, I have a couple questions about the um the sewer. You I'm not sure who this question should be directed to, but just sort of in general. Um, you mentioned that there was going to be an increase in sewer flow of 60 169,000 a day. Is that just for game days, concert days? Nathan Gilbert, that that that's an average flow rate. Okay. Based on Thank you. Um, and and the other question I have is around the plaza. Is that going to be like a public space where people can go or is it going to be closed off and only open during game days or I will say if if they wanted to use the pedestrian amenity, which again 1% is going to be a lot. Uh, it would has to it has to be available to the public at all times. Got it. Otherwise, um, it could be be private. But if they're using it for the if they're using pedestrian amenity funds to implement that, I'd have to be fully available to the public. Okay. Thank you. And then I have a traffic question. Um, so I I take north 580 to go home. Uh, and coming turning, you know, I have to turn right and then get over into the left-hand lanes. So, can you kind of explain uh how how you think that flow is going to happen or is that part of like street lights or just sort of generally how how are you guys thinking of mitigating that? Sure. Happy to answer your question. Which um which intersection you're referring to? Uh so if I'm on Mill, so I'm I'm coming out of GSR. I turn right on Mill and I need to get left to get on to North 580 because the 580 on-ramp is on the left. May I have the overhead, please? So again, this is where we this is where we stand currently on concepts for improvements at the at the um 580 onoff ramp and Mil Street. Um the improvements are all on the offramp as proposed. Okay. To increase that queuing and storage for the heavy inbound movement so that we don't back up onto the freeway. The rest of the intersection is is adequate with some minor signal timing modifications. Okay, thank you. That's all. Um, Andrew Disc for the record, Commissioner Delvr, if I could just add to that. So, the events that we have at the Grand Sier currently in the theater, they're concerts that start at 7 and 8:00 at night. Um, for Nevada basketball games, it's generally seven or eight o'clock if it's a late TV tip off time. So, but I drive that way to go to my daughter's school. I know what it's like between basically 4 and 6:30 every day. So, um, we're we're fairly confident that it's it's going to miss that window prior to when the heavy arrivals start coming to the property for one of those events on that stretch of 580 going north. Do you have any other questions, Commissioner Biser? Sure. Just a followup. Um maybe for staff. Um Nate, just a clarifying question for for the proposed phase 2, you know, down the road. Uh just so I can limit my my questions. Uh will phase two come before this body when that time comes or are we Nathan Gilbert? My answer is that depends. Okay. So, uh the mixed use zone allows for an awful lot of uses by right or through minor conditional use permits. So, for example, the hotel um I can't remember the exact trigger. It's somewhere about 600 hotel rooms. That's a project of regional significance. Wouldn't come to the planning commission, but it would go to the the regional planning commission. Um other types of use like outdoor recreation um aqua golf that will be a minor conditional use permit public notice um appealable to city council. Okay. So mechanisms for public input down the road. Correct. I just want to make sure that was in place. Yep. Thank you sir. And then uh I I guess one for Andrew. Uh just one more. Will y'all be uh installing like intelligent transportation systems to kind of inform your visitors of you know parking traffic flow and event congestion just to help folks get around easily? Um Andrew, just for the record, Commissioner Bisera, yes, that is one of the things that we've been considering. Um you know, it's we want to make it as easy as possible for people to get in and out of the property. Um particularly for the locals who are coming. Um that intelligent traffic systems will help with that. Um, additionally, there will be um, EV charging stations within the new parking garage as well as on the surface lots. We've already got some installed currently at the GSR in front of the property on the big parking lot between the property and 395. Um, so, you know, we we understand that we live in an evolving um, atmosphere when it comes to traffic and and modes of people getting on and off the property. So, yes. Great. Thank you very much, sir. Um, I'm happy to jump into deliberation when the rest of the body is. So, I'm just going to kind of kick back here. Commissioner Velto, did you have any questions? Uh, no, no questions at this point. I'm ready to move into deliberation as well. Sure. Would you like to start that? Uh, sure. Um, I I think I'll keep my comments relatively short. I I think that the uh applicant has met all of the findings and I'm prepared to uh to move forward with this. I think there's a lot of benefits from this project. Uh the benefits um aren't necessarily tied to many of the fine we have to make, but I think the answers in particular to uh Commissioner Jockman's questions about traffic uh were were helpful because that was the only issue I potentially had a concern about. And I appreciate the commissioner for bringing that up and and the applicant's response. All right. Thank you. How about discussion from the folks in the chamber here? Sure. Commissioner Bera. Um pretty much same same sentiments as uh Commissioner Belto. Main concerns were around traffic. Uh I do want to applaud the GSR, Mr. D, uh UNR and others. Um, uh, Commissioner Roire and I, uh, I know we met with them months back, uh, when this was originally coming before us and we shared our feedback and input and since then it's strengthened, uh, as far as what's come before us. They've made sure to meet with the Reno Sparks Indian Colony and satisfied uh, their input and concerns. Uh, this is one of those projects that I can get fully behind. It's uh, I'm W three, it's W three, 100% behind it. So, thank you. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, again, same with um some of the other commissioners. I had concerns about traffic um and then also shuttles or buses to the games um from UNR, especially for the students. Um so, I think all my questions have been answered and I can make all the findings. So, good. I'd like to commend this project for greening up a surface parking lot and taking an underutilized surface area and turning it into an amazing arena as well as adding workforce housing. I think it's exemplary. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Williams, for the record, um, yeah, I I would agree with everybody else. I think this project is fantastic and I I really appreciate the diligence of the city putting in the work and and the explanation from um the um applicant. Uh I am I am worried about traffic and particularly the offramps and um dealing with this many agencies um to to make that work makes me a little nervous. Um, so, um, that's pretty much all I have to say about that. I hope I hope them the best and I I hope that it it works well. Yeah. Thank you. Um, yeah. So, obviously, uh, Commissioner Jockman, um, my trade is as a traffic engineer. So, um I'm acutely aware of the delays and schedule problems that can be posed to applicants as a part of this when you have to deal with numerous agencies. Um the um the project that we're looking at has substantial compliance with uh the general policy 1.2A that pertains to tourism. And um I think I'm I'm comfortable with this applicant moving forward on the basis of making the uh findings with regard to traffic uh particularly with what the applicant showed us and um knowing that many of these items are not in Reno right of way which makes it uh important that we don't overstep our bounds with regard to what conditions we would want to see. So um I'm happy with this moving forward. Great. And Commissioner Bisera, this is your ward. So take it away. All right, thank you so much. Uh, with that, um, well, I guess I should get the, uh, the number right. All right. Uh in the matter of case number LDC25-00008 uh Grand Resort Arena based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make the findings. Commissioner WR I second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Congratulations. All right. Now, we're gonna go back to the Starbucks booth street um and begin with a presentation from staff. Yes, this is uh Carter Williams, associate planner. For the record, I am presenting remotely um this evening. Wait for my presentation. Carter 42 uh item 4.2. too. Carter, we're working on pulling up your presentation. Um, just let us know when you'd like to move to the next slide. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, you guys. Can you see your presentation on the screen, Carter? Yes, I can. Thank you. Um, and you can go to the next slide. Um, so this is a request for a uh conditional use permit for a coffee shop. The request specifically is for an accessory drive-through facility. um next to residentially zoned property and within 300 ft of of a public school. The project site is located at the northeast corner of Booth uh street in Keystone Avenue. Um for context in the area that um this is across from Reno High School or east of or sorry west of sorry yeah east of Reno High School and south of the Clifton Young Federal Building and Courthouse. Um so the key issues analyzed in the CA staff report include compatibility with surrounding uses in the school drive-thru um operational impacts and traffic and access. Next slide, please. The property has the master land uh land use designation of suburban mixed use. Um the pro the policies and goals indicated here uh support this project include balanced modes, bikeways and supporting facilities for um additional bicycle storage and then adding to the overall mix of uh neighborhood centers. So the policies indicated here are contrasted in way to get specific policies that discourage autoor oriented uses with the neighborhood centers. Um staff was able to um find that the this is in conformance generally with the master plan um in this case because there's um it's generally located on the edge of a neighborhood center allowing for more activity generating and pedestrian or oriented uses to be located closer to the center. Um and the staff believes that enhanced pedestrian facilities and bicycle storage um offset the auto autooriented character of the project. Next slide please. The property is located within the neighborhood commercial zone which is um conforming um under the suburban mix master plan. Um and you can see already that there is a mix of zoning designations and this is representative well of the uh uses that are surrounding the property. I wanted to note um that the in during public comment there was a restriction that was indicated that um drive-through facilities are only to be located um with so much distance away from freeway off-ramps. That was a standard that was actually lifted with the zoning code cleanup adopted in January. So under the current code, the neighborhood commercial zone allows for drive-through facilities with with this um conditional use permit. The coffee shop component is allowed by right in this zone. So the um we're we're looking at the general impacts of the site with relation to the residential and the uh school. And next slide please. With respect to the um surrounding uses to the uh south there's neighborhoods supporting commercial. To the north and west are institutional and office uses including the school if you know that. Um and then east is the residential. Um so the generally um the site is located for far far enough away from the residential that it is um consistent with the the standard requirements for drive-through facilities um with respect to residentially zoned property and generally this is adding to that mix of that that center. Um so staff isn't um too concerned um with the compatibility of the zone with the existing standards and code. Next slide. with respect uh with respect to the uh site plan. So the um uh the applicant has proposed an expanded sidewalk with a landscape parkway and this is consistent with both the requirements for commercial corridors and code and it is also consistent within the property to the north which has about actually it's closer to a 7 to 9 ft sidewalk depending on where you are along the corridor. Um so that's indicated in blue is that upgraded sidewalk. It also is um proposed to be um separated um from the street um with a landscape parkway which will add um a safe safer barrier um for pedestrians along that uh corridor closer to that intersection. Um along this as well the um the uh a condition has is being um posed or recommended rather um to double the amount of bicycle parking storage. Currently this is within a level two parking district. normally um it has fewer bicycle parking spaces and a higher number of of vehicular parking spaces, but the the site's proximity to the school, major parks downtown, and the Truckucky River Bike Trail, um I think it's a good opportunity to to um um increase the amount of bike bicycle parking storage. again with uh the intent to um seek conformance with the master pride policies relating to balance of modes with pedestrian oriented or the the pedestrian facilities as well as bicycle storage facilities. Next slide please. Now, for the drive-thru, um the proposed drive-thru meets the minimum length requirements for a drive-through facility according to the code. Um drive-through um distances under the code are required um behind the order kiosk and the pickup window. So, that there has to be so much distance between each of those facilities. Um those are indicated in the um numbered here. The current um capacity for the proposed drive-thru is 11 um spaces uh without having it um back up into the uh the uh uh circulation area and parking area. Um a queuing analysis was performed um that um with the estimated the maximum queue length would be six vehicles. Um that's assuming a five minutes to process order orders from start to finish. Next slide please. Now, uh, code explicitly prohibits drive-through facility stacking in, um, or blocking parking lot circulation areas. Um, that the backup area for parking and pedestrian paths. Um, based on the queuing analysis, the distance to the driveway lane is nearly double the length necessary. So um the the current um proposal can support like double peak hour trips or or generation and double the processing time um or some combination of those two factors. But because we uh we all know that the consistency with the queuing model um is linked to the operation of the business. uh there might be some deviations from those estimates based on the the business that is going in and operating that um drive-through facility. The queuing analysis submitted did not appear to specifically reference this operation outside of that 5m minute time frame. So condition number eight um is uh proposed that would um would require a uh operation plan that requires the deployment of staff when uh a vehicle backup gets into that parking area. And um this is in order to reduce the the backup so that they're in compliance and move move um move the carts along faster within the drive-thru. So that could be um solutions like taking orders in queue um outside of just the existing kiosk or having people waiting for orders um park and wait for curbside service. So um we're letting that um happen at the business license and that would also be uh something that we would address each time a new business would operate with this under this conditional use permit. Now the second condition, condition number nine. So if if the um backup or stacking ends up going into the right of way, really the only recourse that I think staff would be would be reasonable was to turn people away. Um but condition and I would allow us to first initiate a process to work with the administrator to come up solutions to reduce that stacking to be in compliance. But if that problem continues uh and and we're not able to get around that the um repeat violations of that requirement, we would then initiate a hearing for the planning commission to reconsider um the application. Next slide please. Now on traffic and access generally so the uh traffic study that was submitted or the traffic impact um or I think it was an entry and access study um indicated um that 90% of the traffic generated um are going to be pass by trips and pass by trips are those trips that have um that are going to some other destination and they happen to stop on the way um here. here. So that that's um supported by the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual um which um which is acceptable to staff. Um the access driveway itself is positioned as far as possible for away from that intersection. Um and just to be clear, the property is allowed at access and access will be allowed somewhere on the site. City and staff and city staff and RTC both agree that this is the most appropriate location um for this access. Um the highest uh and also um in engineering's analysis the highest traffic period um where this um um project will have the highest peak hour trips um will be also during the the um period with school release and opening times um when a 15 mile per hour speed limit is in effect. So there's there's a safety component there that we're less concerned about um incidents um at that drive um at that driveway. RTC did review this application and recommends that the developer of the parcel work with their team, but they are not far enough along in the design process for the Keystone Bridge improvement project to give more specific feedback to this development. Um, so that they had no um uh explicit comments. Next slide, please. On the screen are the findings for our conditional use permit. um staff was able to review and and meet all the findings um including um compatibility uh consistency with development standards. Um public services there is a requirement to extend the existing existing sewer service to the site. Um so that would be handled during building permit. Um and then otherwise uh staff is um um is not anticipating any um any detrimental impact to public health safety or welfare. Next slide. And on the screen is the recommended motion. Um the applicant will be have a presentation but afterward we will be available for questions. Great. Thank you. We'll hear from the applicant. Good evening. My name is Brook Oswald um the group and representing the client tonight. Uh case before you LDC 250042. Just quickly to go through the team working on this. Kate De Companies is the developer. Uh he has uh the land and has uh Starbucks under lease uh to move into this project site. SCA did the design on the architecture. Hartfeld Engineering who is here tonight uh did our traffic study, traffic and queuing analysis. Uh Bowen Consulting doing the civil work. Uh I'm with the group land planning and design. And I I threw county on there because this is kind of a unique situation. We we did uh we've not only received comment from them, been working with them, but they did reach out uh to work with them with their students. So, we are uh we were supposed to meet this morning with their career and college uh resource coordinator. Uh she was sick, so we're planning on meeting with them next week to see how students can be involved as this project goes forward. Uh I kind of blew out a little bit uh further to give you a context of the location. Our location is here. This is an infill location. And as you can see, most of the land around this has been developed. Um, that provides a really unique opportunity of that infill situation. This is a hard site and we it's vacant land. This increases our tax roles and other things that we see with that development coming in. The surrounding uses directly to the north. We have a federal building. Federal building. Whoop. And I turned it off. Sorry. Um this is one of the wonderful features in this neighborhood is we have a grocery anchored center. Um there are a number of uses from the grocery store, a number of personal service but it should be noted we do have a drive-thru existing there. There is an auto uh repair shop and there is a car wash. These are really car oriented. So there are car oriented uh businesses in that central area there. our residential uh being a single family residential here. We also have some multif family down below, but if you familiar with the site, that's undevelopable land and and a hillside there. And so this is really our uh would be the residential concern. We also have some residential up above. This is a higher density residential. So we have some multif family, some town homes. And so we really feel that this is a a great population for people to be able to walk down and grab a cup of coffee there. We have a great park systems also in close proximity to this uh and the the trail system and the school. Um this is located on Booth and uh Keystone as Carter mentioned briefly. Uh this there is a a project currently under which is that RTC Keystone Avenue improvements. We've been following that and working with that uh you know listening of their they're in the feasibility stage of this but I know what one thing they are looking at is more pedestrian connectivity and bike connectivity. So that will be a big aspect of this project and we're really supportive of that and hoping that we can engage with uh more people in different modes of travel than just the vehicle. Um our our request as Carter said it's for a conditional use permit. the the coffee shops are roughly about 600 foot coffee shop uh that residently zone property and 300 ft from the school. Uh also looking at the master plan uh it is suburban suburban mixed use. Uh we do believe that the infill of this this site and reusing that land effectively uh creates a resilience economy also with the jobs and other benefits tax that comes from that. It's a well-managed growth. It's an infill site. It's a site that's ready for development. vibrant neighborhoods and centers in a safe and healthy and inclusive neighborhood. Our zoning district is neighborhood commercial that as you can see we have a mix of zonings that are around that area. Uh our our zoning is sorry that's uh neighborhood I'm off on that. So that drive-thru as was mentioned by Carter uh was allowed in the neighborhood commercial with the recent update that went through in January. I think a little bit of of knowing a little bit about that that's really driven a lot by that COVID and some of the issues that some of these smaller businesses were having without being able to to do some of that and looking and providing that uh conditional use permit to really give it some oversight and thought as we move through this area. Our residential proximity you can see is is that uh the undevelopable piece and then the the higher residential above. uh go directly to the project site. It's about a halfacre. Uh there are some a lot of constraints on this site. So the Keystone Bridge does not provide any or the Keystone access off there does not provide any access. So we're really limited to our access along Boost Street. Now on Boo Street, you're going to want to move that access as far back as as you can. And so um we have we actually were looked at the possibility of doing a shared drive with the neighboring property that is a federal property. and uh that does not provide the security and other things that wasn't feasible. So, we would be looking at our access point at this point here. One of the other things we're looking at which is a benefit to the site is that we have a four-way signalized intersection. So, that is a controlled pedestrian access in this area. Additionally, during those school hours, that is limited down to 15 m hour. Uh working with traffic study that really the 15 m hour reduces um stopping uh lengths like in half. So, it's really significant what's happening at that point. As you can see on the photo below, that house is above. Not only do we have a distance, we have a great elevation distance above that. We'll have new trees and uh other things that will be required per city code, which will provide additional buffering and and stuff on that. So, we don't anticipate any impact from that. to look at our site plan uh by itself. Our access being up off the top of that. We also have our pedestrian access that'll be improved along the thing and and a direct access of sidewalk across over to the building itself, creating the most safety we creating the shortest distance and the most safety we can for those pedestrians who want to use use the facility. Uh we do have uh our parking. We do meet our parking requirements. There are some unique things on this that you'll notice is that we have some additional parking. These will be specific to staff parking. It just provides another opportunity to slip some parking in and open that up uh and create a little bit more opportunity for uh the patrons of that facility. Um our traffic and queuing uh we do fit 11. If you notice the 12th just barely starts to impact that. Should be noticed up at the drive-thru through we have an additional space out in front. So a car could pull for forward uh after their order is taken and then their order being delivered uh manually. The infrastructure is in close or can be brought to the site. Uh going over our architecture. Uh a big one here is we do have a plaza area. We do have a walk up. So people will be able to walk up and order outside and there is that plaza area for stacking people but also for uh that to be we anticipate chairs and other you know facility there. Architecture is just a singlestory very typical Starbucks uh contemporary building. If you notice, the signage is fairly subdued and uh and the building itself is is is 1,600 square feet and really not dominant on any sort of visual or impact on that. Additionally, we will have the uh we do have a dumpster. Uh part of the condition is that that dumpster will be uh architecturally compatible with the the building itself. So that we're we're looking at the aesthetics of the site. We do have a couple of objections to the conditions. Not nec number eight's not necessarily object an objection. We just think it could be written a little better uh so that it's clearer to do. Uh we the operator has specific industry standards and operating procedures for queuing and operations. Uh these are implemented per management as anticipated. So not just the going out there, it's it's how many employees they're going to have, how much equipment they have, and a number of those. We we feel that the condition lacks a little bit of the knowledge of the overall operations of how to manage the store and believe that our our our CL or the tenant is is highly skilled in this at uh for Q management and operations. So we just we proposed that prior to the issue of business license, the astronaut should provide a standard operating procedures for queue management, drive-through operation, circulation control for the peak hours of operation. Management shall ensure that staff is trained and proficient in these specific procedures and processes. We just believe this kind of encompasses a more overall management of that queue. Additionally, number nine, we do have a objection to this. This is really just based on due process. believe there's already a process in place for this and this this condition possibly could remove that. Uh there are current enforcement opt options, establishment procedures and the ability to for uh the conditional use permit to be brought back for reconsideration. uh we just feel we're a little nervous with this condition that it lacks objective standards of when that could be implemented and how that could be be implemented and it could create sort of an arbitrary or capriccious enforcement risk and that um with that I'll end my presentation. I'm available for questions. Thank you. Right. We'll go to disclosures starting with uh familiar with the site. Uh read emails from the applicant and uh emails in opposition to the project. Commissioner Williams just have read the documentation provided by the city. Commissioner Roar Meer familiar with the site read and received emails. Commissioner Delvr familiar with the site and read received and read emails. Commissioner Bisera, same disclosures. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Uh, Commissioner disclosures as Commissioner Bisera. All right, we'll open public comment. Was anybody in chambers wishing to speak on this item? All right, seeing none, did we have uh anyone on Zoom? I don't have anyone at this moment with their hand raised. Um, if you'd like to speak under public comment for this item and you are a participant on the Zoom meeting, please raise your hand at this time. I do not have any participants with their hand raised. Okay, we will close public comment and open it to questions from the commission. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, if I may. Uh, okay. Okay. So, my questions are targeted at identifying the uh and objectively identifying what the need for condition 9. Uh Carter question. So, question for staff. Um the standard uh stacking requirement for the city is 140 ft. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes. And what does the applicant provide in terms of stacking uh capacity? Uh it's it's well over that including and and there's so there's 140 ft and then um there's 40 feet behind the order kiosk as well. So those are the two requirements that have to be met. Uh I believe it is over um it is about 200 or or some somewhere around 200. Yes. So then um it's it's in excess of the the code requirement. That's correct. That's correct. Yes. So, um, if we were to grant this approval as written and and that is it possible that the tenant could change for the site um and not come back for approval uh by the planning commission. That's correct. So, conditional use permits run with the land. So, if a new operator were to take over this site, they would be these same conditions would apply and they would not come before this body again. So, we can assume that the traffic study that's identifying the amount of stacking necessary um is going to be consistent with the site for all all uses that I think use for the traffic analysis as it relates to um because it's it was specific to a coffee shop use. So, it is specific to a coffee shop. If um for instance a another operator were were to come in that was not a coffee shop I use that would maybe be more like a fast food restaurant that could trigger an addition a uh a requirement of building permit but otherwise it it would the same we wouldn't necessarily require additional appro so it could be another coffee shop though correct correct correct okay uh thank you I'll yield uh Commissioner Williams for the record I also have a ression for staff. Uh the project's location within 300 ft of Reno High School raises some safety and congestion issues, particularly during peak and school hours. The master plan's focus on safe environments um reflected in the staff report is only partially addressed by sidewalk improvements. It seems like the school district's um crossing guard recommendation was ignored and I'm just wondering if uh staff can speak on that. So yeah, I don't wouldn't say that it is ignored. Um and I think that staff actually would support um that those improvements. The problem with that putting that as a condition or requiring that of the applicant at this time is that um those to install a crossing requires a a more robust study into the safety of that crossing. Um those crossings aren't inherently safe. um it could in it could actually increase um pedestrian in um incidents with vehicles in the area. So So we we don't want to hold up um this applicant um based on like because of the findings as it relates to the um this project um because it's it's possible that it I mean that it's not appropriate um for that crossing. Okay. And Commissioner Williams, just for the record again, so what what you're saying is that um there is a potential that that school district recommendation for a pedestrian safety crosswalk could make things worse. Is that what I'm hearing? It's it's it's possible, but without a study, we couldn't we couldn't say. Okay. So, what what I will say is that this is also something that could be initiated by the city on its own. Um it doesn't necessarily have to be constructed by the the applicant in association with this project. It's it's just it wasn't staff didn't feel it appropriate um as well as the engineering division didn't feel it appropriate or um necessary in the findings for this application. Thank you sir. That's all I have. Commissioner Bera for the record. This kind of builds upon uh Commissioner Williams line of questioning just now. I think it's for you too Carter. So the coffee shop is allowed by right. Um, but there was public input this evening about pedestrian safety and um, I was just curious, how does this project mitigate those concerns or perhaps enhance the pedestrian experience? Is it just through the widening of the sidewalk or is there something else, Carter? Yeah, so um, the widening of the sidewalk is one. I mean providing more um I mean more area for um pedestrians to to be further away from the the roadway, but also that five foot landscape strip um closer to the intersection that that's something that will definitely provide um um safety I mean a safety component so that um there's just as we move if we if we as move pedestrians away from the roadway as much as possible, we're going to increase safety in that in that on that intersection. Okay. Thank you. And just uh two very quick ones for you. Uh, how do you feel about the proposed revised condition number eight and the objection to condition number nine, Commissioner Bera, for the record? So, condition number eight specifically, I'm actually not too concerned about the um updated language other than that it removes the last statement that the the intent is to uh comply with requirements to reduce backup inside the parking area. So, that would be my only I'm not sure if the applicant is um willing to add that piece back in, but otherwise I would not have a um issue with the uh updated language unless Mike has a different perspective. Looks like Brook's coming to the dis. Yeah, this is Brook Oswald. Um yeah, we're we're okay with adding that language back in. We feel that's appropriate. Is this for condition number eight, Brooke? For condition number eight, correct? Okay. And then I guess Thank you, Brooke. for Mike for I guess you uh adding on to our language and adding that on the end I guess is what I would be agreeing to. Yes. Okay. I'll let you Okay. And then Commissioner Reserve for the record just a little followup I guess Mike um could you speak to condition number nine and the full objection to it and Sure. Um condition number nine essentially mimics section 1801504b of our code. Um, I think you know removal of that condition would not result in the city not having the ability to bring this back for reconsideration if it becomes a public nuisance. So, um, I think it could be argued that that condition is repetitive. So, if it's the will of the commission to remove that condition, I believe we're covered in the code to if it becomes a problem. Is is is there context as to maybe why it was needed explicitly? We have had and and it's not that we're assuming that Starbucks will be a bad operator, but we have had other drive-thru uses throughout the city that have had queuing issues where they back onto public rights away and it's created issues not only for pedestrian safety but for traffic safety, the police department and what not. So, we wanted it. It's it's kind of a checks and balances, so to speak. Okay. I I defer to you actually. Being a cyclist myself, I've personally experienced that kind of overflow often. So, thank you. This is a Commissioner Delvr. Um, can we bring up those two, eight, and nine again? I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page and understanding it correctly. We'll pull up that applicant presentation. Thank you. So, eight, uh, your verbiages prior to the issuance, etc., etc. And then we would add to the end of that uh to reduce uh the queue line so that the parking area remains clear or something to that effect because we have to do that tonight as part of our process. I just want to make sure we're okay with that. And then the recommendation is to remove condition 9 or keep their verbiage for uh condition 9. It seems condition 9 is redundant to code. Okay. I just wanted some clarification. Thank you. I don't have any questions. You would like to move into discussion? Oh, Al, Alex, did you have questions? No questions. Looking forward to moving to the next phase. All right. Why don't you start off the discussion? I'll put on the hot seat. Uh so I guess uh I I would say uh I appreciate you pointing out commissioner or chair the redundancies in code. Um I'm content with uh uh what's been proposed by the applicant and accepting that condition especially with uh Mike's comments on it as well as yours. Uh and I can make all the findings to support the application. All right. Thank you. How about discussion from those in the room? Commissioner Williams, for the record, this might be just for my fellow commissioners. Um, needing some help just kind of getting through this. Everything I find in the master plan dis discourages autooriented uses and neighborhood centers. Um, I know that they they're justifying this by citing the edges location and kind of a reasonzoning. Um but it kind of sets a precedence unfortunately when you um make findings that go directly against the master plan and these auto uses. So just wondering if you guys can help me through the some of the historical maybe or just a brief like how this is in front of us as far as it kind of directly goes against the master plan. You Oh, I was going to go ahead. I was going to weigh in as well. Um, so this has been a really this is a really good point. Um, autooriented uses in terms from an environmental design perspective, public health perspective, these drive-throughs are not good. It was interesting that we had a code cleanup presentation. And I just want to point out that the community development director herself said during CO the city has taken a new stance on drive-throughs um, and see them in a different light. So I guess that is the context by which we're now re-evaluating these. I generally agree in terms of I think they're bad practice. I think the walkups are, you know, much better establishments for our community. I will say in this particular location, I am supportive of the project because across the street in the other parking lot, there's a drive-through coffee shop. And so, you know, why is it okay there and not here is sort of where I'm leaning. But generally, I I find that I we should be getting away from drive-throughs. I still think that's planning practice. Chair Roire, appreciate the thought on that. And you bring up a good point in the fact that addition in addition to that other drive-through thing. There's a drive-through car wash and drive-thru. There's a lot of drive-thru over there. But just trying to navigate the intent of the master plan in in this in my first few meetings. So, I appreciate the help. Commissioner Bera, for the record, uh I would agree and stand alongside Chair Roar's sentiments there and also want to point out because it is a good question, Commissioner Williams, that um you know, when I first started, uh I was very focused on setting precedents. Uh and I think it's it's a good good perspective to be in, but as I've been reminded over and over, uh there is no precedence. and uh more or less right it it's it's based upon this body's kind of discretion and we evaluate projects uh on their merit and what's before us. So um you know just because we do it tonight doesn't necessar need mean we need to do it the next time if it just doesn't make sense based on the findings or lack thereof if that's helpful. Uh but you rais a good point so appreciate that. Yep. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, I uh, you know, I have concerns um, with the the traffic uh, and then to to your point um, just you know having uh, the drive-throughs. I'm hoping that the walk up window will be utilized especially by the students um and that at some point um the whether you know Wo County district had recommended the signal light and and I am making an assumption here that if safety becomes an issue something will be will be done about it. Um, and so, uh, from from that standpoint and especially with that particular space where there's not a lot of other things that can happened there, I'm okay and can make the findings. Does anyone want to make a motion? Do we have concurrence on how we would like to move forward with conditions eight and nine or I'm of the belief we should strike condition nine. I Commissioner Ber for the record. I can I can get uh eight makes sense. Totally. I can get behind removing number nine, but I do want to just at least give the staff and administrators a nod that I don't think they do it willy-nilly as well or they're not capriccious. I think that they did it for a reason. But if everyone's amendable to it, I can support that as well. Commissioner Jockman. Yeah. In regards to condition number nine, I'm comfortable making the findings with or without the condition. Uh it it would appear as though that since we can have a coffee shop that would not be specific to Starbucks um at that site that the queuing dynamics could change, which is largely a function of the um employee operations on the site. So I I can understand why staff put it there. Uh but again I can make uh because it could be something other than a Starbucks in the future. So um but I can make the findings regardless of the condition. Uh the applicant did mention something in regards to due process. So this might be a question for legal. Um does the city attorney's office take any exception to the way that condition 9 is written? This is Jasmine Ma for the record. No, I think I as Mr. pointed out, I think it's it's duplicative of the of the code, so it's fine either way. Thank you. All right, I guess I'll make the motion. Um uh on the matter of case number LDC25-000042 based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions listed in the staff report in addition to uh modified language for condition number eight uh and the striking of condition number nine for duplicity purposes and I can make the findings. Commissioner Jockman second. All in favor? I I I. Any opposed? All right. Project passes unanimously. Congratulations. All right. Does anybody need a short break? All right. We're going to take a five minute break and then uh revisit the meeting with Stonegate. [Music] [Music] We'll begin just momentarily. Sorry. Um, and we will start with a presentation on Stonegate with city staff. All right. Uh, good evening, members of the planning commission. Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. Tonight, I'm bringing you LDC 24-51, which is the master plan amendment and zoning map amendment for Stonegate uh Hines Ranch. The project site is about 1767 acres in size. Uh it's generally located north of US 395, west of White Lake Parkway, and south of White Lake and US 395 in Cold Springs. The site has been used for ranching since the mid 1850s and is largely vacant except for historic ranch buildings. The requests before you tonight are a master plan amendment on about 1363 acres from a mix of industrial suburban mixed use uh mixed neighborhood, single family neighborhood, multif family neighborhood, large lot neighborhood, parks, greenways, and open space and no land use to a mix of industrial, suburban, mixed use, and uh single family. You also have a zoning map amendment from 1767 acres of stonegate plan unit development to a mixture of industrial single family 5 units per acre general commercial and parks greenways greenways and open space zoning. The key issues that staff analyzed are compatibility of the proposed master plan land use designations and zoning with the surrounding land use designations and development. We also looked at provision of public utilities and services. Um, I wanted to provide you a breakdown of the proposed request in terms of the acreages and the different designations. So, you can see on the top the applicant is proposing to go from eight master plan land use designations down to four. And on this uh lower table, you can see they're going from the plan unit development to four uh different zoning designations. And you can see the corresponding acreages here. Um turning to land use compatibility, the suburban mixeduse, industrial and single family land use designations are generally compatible with the existing uses, land use designations and zoning bordering the site. Looking at each of these individually uh suburban uh mixed use, land use, and corresponding GC zoning in the northeastern portion of the site here would mostly adjoin industrial and parks, greenways, and open space, land use, and industrial and commercial zoning. The single family land use uh down here towards the bottom. Uh single family land use and zoning are adjacent to the undeveloped open space and rural parcels in the county as well as undeveloped unincorporated transition parcels, other single family property and parks parks, greenways, and open space. The single family land use is also separated from the proposed industrial in this area here by Union Pacific Railroad tracks and parks, greenways, and open space buffers. The industrial which is concentrated in the middle of the site here would be adjacent to existing parks, greenways and open space, single family, suburban mixed use and industrial land use designations surrounding the site. The industrial would also be adjacent to existing residential uses and zoning in the county in the area shown here. The applicant has proposed a 100 foot uh wide parks, greenways, and open space buffer in this area which has satisfied the Wo County Community Services Department. I would also point out that as you know, a minor site plan review for any non-residential development adjacent to residential zoning would be required uh with future development. Turning to zoning, the applicant is requesting to dissolve the planned unit development and return to standard zoning designations. So you can see the PUD on the left and the proposed zoning on the right. The emphasis on industrial zoning is similar to what existed prior to the zoning to the plan unit development back in 2018. So if you looked back in time, um the uh emphasis on industrial actually is what was around uh prior to resoning to the PUD. In terms of development potential, uh portions of the property are constrained by topography, vegetation, year-round streams, and existing easements. So, if you look at the uh graphic here, you can see that there are a number of areas that are constraints. You have tree protection areas. You have an existing easement for endangered plant species. Uh you have source water protection areas. There's a major power line or power utility corridor running through the site. you have various easements and issues that present constraints to future development. Uh development on the site will be subject to constraints review with future entitlements and/or building permits. In fact, multiple public review processes will be required for future buildout similar to those required by the PUD handbook. The property will still be developed in phases with the first phase focused on site improvements and background infrastructure. While a number of uses may be permitted by Wright under the proposed zoning districts, a major site plan review will be required to address preservation of an on-site major drainage way as well as limits on cuts and fills associated with development of the backbone infrastructure. Additional public review will be required for future tenative subdivision maps, conditional use permits, and/or major and minor site plan reviews. In all cases, these required entitlements would allow the city and other reviewing agencies to ensure that any future development meets Title 18 standards and that all potential impacts uh to the general area and surrounding neighborhoods are addressed and properly mitigated. Another topic that I wanted to bring before you is a project of regional significance or PRS. The PUD exceeded the PRS thresholds for housing, traffic, water usage, sewage, student population, and employment. While a final project plan is not specifically included with the amendments that you're considering tonight, the applicant has proactively prepared various studies and and analyses to demonstrate compliance with the PRS requirements for conformance. The first table on the screen compares the previously approved PUD with the new anticipated project plan. So, let's look at that a bit. Under the PUD, you had 5,000 residential units that were approved. The the applicant is estimating that under the potential project plan that they would have about 1350 residential units. Previously, you had I say previously it exists currently 290,000 ft of retail, commercial, and medical office. That's being reduced to approximately 210,000 ft². Previously you had 950,000 square feet of industrial that's being increased to about 11.75 million square feet. And previously you had about 2310 K to2 students. That's being dramatically reduced to 424 K to2 students. The second table outlines the various PRS thresholds. The approved 2018 PRS and the potential 2024 project plan estimates. So if we look in the uh right two uh the the two right columns on the lower table you can see the comparison of the 2018 you see the same numbers from above and then the 2024 PRS estimates as you can see with the exception of employment uh this information information demonstrates that the proposed reszoning could decrease the overall impact on the region as a whole. Um, it's also worth noting that the initial review by the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency did not identify any potential conformance issues. Um, turning to utilities and services, the Great Basin Water Company is the primary water purveyor in Cold Springs and has expressed interest in serving the development. If you refer back to the previous slide, uh looking at the numbers, the potential water demand to serve future development after the proposed resoning has been reduced by about 60% due to the change in land use from residential to industrial. Sewer service will be provided by Wo County Cold Springs Water Reclamation Facility. Again reflecting on the current the previous slide, the estimated sewage generation for development after reszoning is approximately 44% less than the previously approved PUD. The significant reduction in the number of potential residential units, again remember going from 5,000 down to about 1300 would result in approximately 82% fewer potential students being generated by the project. In consultation with the WO County School District, it is anticipated that existing school facilities are adequate to serve the projected students and the fire and public safety services and parks and open space agreements will remain in place. This slide is master plan conformance. There are 16 goals and policies that are supportive of the proposed requests. Rather than dive into each one of those, I would simply point out the framework that allows staff to conclude that the proposed requests are in substantial conformance with the master plan. The application supports policies found within the master plan by increasing access to services and employment for the outer neighborhoods and the foothill neighborhoods that are currently underserved, potentially providing residents with decreased commuting time, resulting in a better jobs, housing, and lifestyle balance. The site has direct freeway access, potential rail access, and proximity to existing power facilities and major fiber fiber optic backbone. This coupled with the surrounding workforce population and housing provides an opportunity for potential businesses seeking to relocate to Northern Nevada by focusing on employment opportunities through industrial and commercial development. This application could result in a higher tax base. Compared to the approved PUD, the proposed changes in land uses could reduce overall trip generation and congestion, water and sewage use, school impacts, public access or sorry, public safety costs and generate surplus tax revenue for public benefit and use. Here are the recommended findings for a master plan amendment. Staff can make all recommended findings. Here are the recommended findings for a zoning map amendment. Again, staff can make both recommended findings. And here's the recommended motion, and I'm available for questions. All right. Thank you. Now, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and while um staff gets my presentation up, uh Andy Durling for the record with Wood Rogers representing the applicant. Um I do have I think about 29 slides. I will try to get through those and not be redundant with staff's portion. Um, but do ask if I do go a little bit over, if you can give me just a few more minutes, that would be greatly appreciated. Um, just a little bit of history. Uh, Jeff touched on this a little bit, but this has been private property since the 1800s and a and a working ranch. Um, really important to this history though is in in 2005. Uh, this portion of Cold Springs, um, Stonegate area, Evans Ranch, a large annexation occurred in 2005 into the city of Reno. Uh along with that uh was a master plan and zoning action um that interestingly for this property was primarily ind industrial with a bit a little bit of commercial and single family. Uh 2014 it was sold to the current um developer group. Uh PUB was submitted and approved in 2018. Uh they continued diligently to pursue that development. Um and we'll share in a few slides um what they were doing. Uh and they were ready a great breakground in 2021 but unfortunately economic conditions uh did not allow that. And so now we're in front of you uh with a resoning uh request. So what has changed? I think we all experienced uh in 2021 drastic changes inflation um you know ultimately rendering the upfront infrastructure costs for this project for the residential PUD um to be just out of line and ultimately rendering that residential PUD economically infeasible to develop. Um the existing PUB uh which was approved in 2018 had a ra mix of predominantly residential uses. Uh it did have a little bit of commercial and industrial land already in it uh as well as parks, greenways and open space. And as I mentioned, the Stonegate team continued to pursue that development. Um obtaining more than 95 approvals, permits uh um easements, rights of way um from various agencies and private parties in order to um facilitate that development. Uh even had multiple bid packages that went out for bid. they were ready to break ground. Uh, and those bids came back so out uh of of what they were budgeting um that it rendered it uh infeasible. As I mentioned, as I go through the rest of my presentation and and Jeff uh definitely touched on this just, you know, kind of hearken back and and remind you about the condition or the findings that you you need to make. um substantial conformance with the master plan, reasonably compatible with nearby uses, um public facilities that can be within um uh in the context of the master plan concurrency management system. And then for the zoning map amendment that we're in in accordance with the components of title 18 uh as well as NRS section 278 250 section 2 uh and that the amendment is in substantial conformance. So, as we go through, I've kind of added little little highlights, little check marks to give you um kind of a cue um for where we are are are highlighting how we're making those findings. First and foremost, the master plan amendment consists of of a change um from the existing PD obviously and those land uses um to what's proposed now. Um the slide here, as Jeff mentioned, you know, there was uh a master planning zoning action that occurred when this was annexed back in 2006 uh which is on the left side of your screen. And if you look at that compared to what's proposed now, really this is a turning back the clock uh to what was uh in place for many years before uh the the Stonegate PUD was approved. The existing PUD uh the land use designations associated with that as you see mix of residential dens or residential uh land uses there some suburban mixed use and some industrial as well as those parks, greenways and open space. what's proposed now again turning back the clock a little bit to industrial um on on a on the center portion some suburban mixed use on the north and single family on on the south um you have to find that this is in conformance with the master plan policies I'm not going to go through all of these but this is just uh to highlight we went a little deeper than than what staff put in the in the staff report uh all of the the elements that you see there on the stream screen are where uh this proposal directly aligns with the different policies of of the master plan. Uh in addition to that, the master plan kind of has three components sort of general policies, area specific policies we're outlining there. And what I want to highlight is on the right side, the kind of third component of the master plan is this growth and reinvestment framework. Um that framework has a couple of elements to it. One, it kind of calls for in the city as a whole a mix of viable uses. Um and we uh mimic that uh with a mix of viable uses for this for this property. In addition, it has a concurrency concurrency management system uh that is built into there that framework that talks about concurrent infrastructure and services with development. Um whether it's water, sewer, flood, uh transportation, public safety, parks, greenways, and open space. Um those are all things that we have accommodated for with this request. Uh and as I'll get to in future slides, a lot of that infrastructure um because of the PUD has been um analyzed um designed studied um so that this isn't something that we're kind of starting from square one. We are going to be close to you know kind of a breakground ready uh position um shortly after this. Um the current zoning request um based on the constraints of the land uh industrial on uh 923 acres, general commercial on 54 acres, SF5 on about 386 acres and parks greenways and open space on about 404 acres. Um as Jeff mentioned, creating some open space buffers adjacent to some of that existing residential in the county on the north side there. Um we do maintain parks, greenways, and open space um connectivity with the US Forest Service land to the south of us. Um so public access can be maintained and actually created with this. Uh the ranch didn't necessarily um uh facilitate that. Uh one key thing here, you know, we're going away from the PUD with the approval of this zoning that would extinguish the PUD. Um and so any future development would have to be in concordance with reomunic code even if it changes. So that as as the code is amended over time, um this project would have to evolve with the codes as codes evolve. Uh, and as I mentioned before, this is kind of a turn back the clock to back uh to what the zoning was in in 2006. So, why the resoning? Um, essentially, you know, as we as I mentioned, um, the infrastructure needs for the residential um, uh, were were pretty extreme. Uh, and so the refasing of those off-site improvements helps significantly reduce the upfront costs to get a project out of the ground sooner. Uh and overall because of the shift in land use here from residential to industrial, the overall infrastructure needs go down considerably. Uh industrial land use is going to help pay for the infrastructure to bring this um this you know this project to fruition which then will help facilitate the future housing and commercial development as well. Um this is a location that's really desirable to employers. If you look kind of around the region uh and and even within the master plan, you know, it really um um focuses on locating employment uses um that are in close close proximity to to the freeway and interstate system. Um so it's easy access um and also it's you know in close proximity to a labor force in the north valleys as well that you've have that that labor and housing already there to supply those workers. Um so some of the infrastructure uh planning that's gone on um with respect to traffic considerations when you compare this land use um uh proposal as compared to the approved PUD it's it's a significant reduction in the overall traffic generation but in addition to that it's a reduction in uh the peak hour commutes um because we're creating some reverse commutes we've got we'll have people you know from the north valleys now that aren't having to go south into town every morning to go to work uh they and go north uh and we'll have folks, you know, from from the southern parts of Reno uh coming to work and and having that reverse commute because we have an improved jobs housing balance as part uh of this proposal. Uh more of that traffic additionally remains in the north valleys. Uh and it ultimately results in about a 9% reduction in the total number of trips um from the PUB heading down south uh on 395. Uh in addition, just to highlight again, right, those trucks are combined to the freeway and internal roads. they're not having to traverse through existing neighborhoods um to to get to um those businesses. This is just to highlight there's a lot of work that's been going on in the north valleys over the last um number of years. Um starting with the spaghetti bowl uh expansion, the phase one exp spaghetti bowl phase 2 is underway. Obviously the widening of 395 is underway and a number of arterial road improvements uh that are also going on. I want to highlight, you know, those improvements um were based on a lot of the modeling efforts that included the Stonegate PUD, the Stonegate residential PUD. Um so, um with the reduction in the number of trips and the amount of traffic, it only helps to improve the longevity of those improvements going into the future. Um in addition to kind of the regional aspect, you know, the direct impacts of of this development over time will be dealt with um you know, in in in close proximity to the site. Um it'll be phased with development. Um that'll include improvements to the Whites Lake 395 interchange as well as widening of Whites Lake uh Parkway. Uh construction of all the internal roads, some of which may be uh regional roads in the long run. Uh and it ultimately retains connectivity of the existing connect um frontage road that's on the south side of 395 there. Uh water service. Um just from an overall water rights demand standpoint, the PUD required about 25 acre feet 2500 uh acre feet of water rights. Uh the reszone what we're estimating is it's somewhere around a thousand. Uh and Stonegate themselves own uh 1,700 acre feet on site. So in in uh ground and surface water rights. Um that will um be developed um uh in the in phases. Um so the first phase will develop and build and dedicate that on-site water source uh water resource dedicated to Great Basin Water Company. Um phase two would be to connect into the existing Great Basin Water Company system. helps them with redundancy in their system. Uh and then ultimately there's a future option to integrate Tumbla with a wholesale pipeline that would also come into the valley to to help supplement that in in uh u during uh you know maybe drought times. So S sewer service uh is already been planned um again because of all the work that was done uh on behalf of the PUB uh the reszoning significantly reduces the amount of sewage that is generated from this project. Uh the developer will construct that um this off-site sewer which goes around uh the east side of White Lake. Um it'll be dedicated to Wo County. Um ultimately goes to their the cold springs wastewater treatment facility which is uh operated by the county. Um it helps to generate a water balance because we're we have water sources, you know, water resources that are on uh within the Cold Springs Valley being treated and reinjected in the Cold Springs Valley. That helps to balance the overall groundwater out there. Uh in addition to this corridor, there would be other utilities uh that would be in there uh you know um future water, gas, electrical, as well as reclaim water that would be coming back to the Stonegate site to to help with uh irrigation water and um uh processed water for for potential industrial uses in the future. Um one kind of added benefit for the community here is, you know, this um this off-site sewer, uh again, the easements are already in place for this. um it borders the east side of White Lake and would create a new trail um because of the the maintenance access road that would have to be constructed for that. So about half of the lake would then have a trail going around it which is just kind of an added benefit for um for this uh drainage solutions. Uh the ranch um uh rel you know operated as as primarily uh alalfa ranching. So they had flood irrigation man-made channels uh in order to irrigate the land. Um those will have to be channelized and moved. uh of Clomar was approved in 2019. Um that may need to be updated slightly to be more reflective of the industrial land plan versus on the right side there is really you know dictated by the the residential land plan. Uh ultimately you know it has to comply with the city of Reno's requirements in the regional um uh storm water uh management uh manual uh and would be um appro need to be approved by the city in the future. Uh power and fiber are available. There's a number of transmission facilities um substations that are adjacent to or near the property that would be able to supply the the necessary power for um those future you know logistics and manufacturing uses. Um there's also some fiber uh that's in 395 as well as the up rideway. Uh public safety uh the PUD the residential PUD calls for service were um such that they generated the need for uh a separate fire station in Stonegate. Uh there was an agreement that was approved by the city council in 2018 that was phased, you know, the construction of that um uh facility was phased over time with the with the growth of the residential and construction of the residential. Obviously with the reszone um that significantly changes um the calls for service industrial has a very low call for service as compared to residential. They're actually kind of the opposite ends of the spectrum. Uh and so with that um we will be we've had initial discussions with uh city and Reno Fire um bounced back some some some new um uh agreement language. Ultimately it's contingent upon this resoning being approved but we anticipate um once this is approved we will go into a renegotiation of that agreement uh for equipment needs the that the Reno fire department may have. Uh there's also a parks uh agreement that was in place with the residential, residential um you know generates the need for additional parks uh industrial doesn't necessarily. Um so where there was 435 acres of open space in the PUD, we still have 404 acres of open space. Um in addition, you know, we you know, we we talked about the Whites Lake Trail. Um we're looking at a trail network throughout the industrial area to provide that as an amenity to employees in the future. um we have that connectivity to public lands on the south side near the residential. There will still be some park elements in the residential as well as uh near the Whiteslake trail that we would anticipate. Uh and then one of the other things we heard was uh the desire to kind of increase the tree canopy. And so one of the things that we're going to be volunteering to put into that renegotiated park agreement is um increase in the number of trees that would be required uh public transportation. So transit service is not in Cold Springs right now. Uh but we did reach out to them and they up when RTC was updating their short-range transit plan recently, they included Cold Springs. Um and you know because the you know if the potential of a major employment center there um ultimately you know that may or may not dictate um you know RTC uh extending transit service out there but it sure helps. Um, but one thing we know for sure is with employment like that, um, RTC has a very successful Smart Trips program that they have with employers for ride shares, van pools, things like that. And and those would be in, um, included in in any future development. Um, Jeff uh, touched on the PRS. Uh, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but just kind of the punchline that, you know, it's a significant reduction in those um, um, project of regional significant triggers um that, uh, regional planning commission already found to be in conformance with the regional plan. So the reductions of those with the caveat that obviously we're increasing the amount of employment which we feel is not a bad thing. Uh it further you know adds resiliency to uh our economic uh environment here in in the city of Reno. I'm getting close. Um so with uh just wanted to highlight some of the community benefits. Um we did do a pretty significant outreach effort as part of this. Um obviously you know we went to the NAB uh the ward for NAB. Uh we also conducted three neighborhood meetings. Um we're required by state law when you do a master plan amendment to have at least one. Um we did the first one um sent out notices to about 200 people and only got 10 uh people that showed up. Um so we increased the noticing boundary significantly to 700 notices sent. Um got you know 30 or 40 folks that came to those uh second and third meetings and got some good input. Um one of the things I really want to highlight on uh benefits of the project is the the fiscal impact. Um, so when we do a master plan amendment, we have to supply the city staff with a fiscal impact analysis that's that's developed based on standards that were adopted by council. Um, this project, when you look at it, um, generates $161 million in in revenue to the city, uh, over a 20-year period, uh, averaging about 8 million annually. Um, $70 million in surplus is generated with this project, uh, over that 20-year period. And that surplus starts day one. uh it averages about three and a half million per year. So that's a pretty significant influx of of money uh especially, you know, when we're dealing with an environment of budget shortfalls right now. Um that is a key element to um you know, this type of change. And just to give you a comparison, the residential PUB generated a $26 million surplus over the over a similar kind of 20-year period. So just to summarize kind of the community benefits that we that we feel is being offered with this change, creation of 8,800 new jobs, new permanent jobs in addition to, you know, uh thousands of um um construction jobs obviously during construction. Um this growth pays for itself. Uh it ultimately reduces traffic from what's already approved. Uh still creates additional um residential units that we obviously need also in in our community. uh reduces water and sewer, provides for flood mitigation, uh reduces pu uh fire and public safety um costs to the city. Uh in addition to those surpluses, uh reduces school impacts. Uh adds, this is important. One of the things we heard, you know, from um uh North Valley's residents is kind of the lack of um um services. And I don't mean like public services, but services and by way of, you know, kind of restaurants, um grocery stores, drugstores, offices, you know, health healthcare offices, things like that. We feel that introducing uh a significant increase in the amount of employment in the north valleys. It doesn't become a bedroom community anymore to where folks are having to leave the valley to go to work every every morning and come back at night. That's really important especially for restaurants. You need to have kind of two services per day whether that's a breakfast lunch or lunch dinner. Um and without an employment base you don't have that kind of lunch service that makes it viable for those restaurants to survive over time. So we feel like this is a good way to to help with that in the long run. Uh still have 400 acres of open space uh new parks, trails and open and parks and trails as well as uh access to piv. So just to remind you about the findings as I went through this and I know it's it's a quick presentation but uh we feel you can make the findings for the master plan amendment with substantial conformance to the priorities as we've shared and policies as we've shared uh compatibility with nearby uses as well as the a concurrency management system. uh the zoning map amendment we feel we can comply easily with uh title 18 uh as well as NRS 278250 which is provided for you here. It's a number of items um in a not to spend too much time because I'm over but u we do comply with all of uh those elements of uh or can comply with all of those elements of NRS 278250 sections 2 uh with exception of the coordination compatibility with the military installation because there's not one in in the vicinity. So, with that, I thank you for giving me extra time, Madam Chair, and I would be happy to answer any questions. All right, we're going to let you take a breath and we're going to do disclosures. Starting with uh Commissioner Jockman met with the applicant. Commissioner Williams met with the applicant. Commissioner Burmayer met with the applicant. Familiar. Commissioner Delvier met with the applicant. Familiar with the site and I live in Ward 4. Commissioner Bisera, for the record, met with and spoke with the developer and their representative, Mr. Andy and his Wood Rogers crew, intimately familiar with the project site, went to school with many longtime residents of Cold Springs in the North Valley's community who still live there, and read and reviewed material and public comment. And Commissioner Valto, uh, Commissioner Volto spoke with the applicant's representative. Okay, very good. Now, we will open this to public comment. Uh, I have a few request to speak forms here. Um, do we have anyone online wishing to speak? Um, not at the moment. Um, we might have some in a few minutes. Okay, we'll start with Liliana Ocha. Hello, my name is Liliana. I was born and raised here in Reno, Nevada. I lived in Cole Spring since I was 2 years old. From as long as I can remember, Cole Springs has been one of the places known for stargazing, wildlife, and obviously White Lake. Growing up, I always drive past cattle, horses. Um, I know a lot of people who live in Cole Springs. They've been living there for 50 plus years, and I am always amazed by the stories when they tell me about how much Cole Springs has grew. Um I am opposed for this project because I do want to keep Cold Springs um very short uh very close tight cuz I am close with some of the community. Um we do keep updated when there's like accidents going on, injuries, fires. Um but one thing that I really do love about Cold Springs and why I want to keep um I'm against this is cuz I see a lot of beauty photography. I see a lot of wildlife, coyotes, desert cottontails, owls, and bald eagles. Um, I want to thank you guys for letting me speak, and I hope you guys have a good night. Thank you, Bill Headley. Hello. Thank you, council. Um, I neither agree or disagree or approve or disapprove of this project. I agree with the green space available for the new development. And my main concern was um Tim Wis coming into the valley would create our little white lake into a flooded area like Swan Lake or Silver Lake in the Red Rockstead area. And um at one point uh the city council was approached by the development to provide a bond for their development. And I was wondering if the council would still be interested in providing that situation paid for by taxpayers um if this goes forward when it does. And that's about it. Thank you. Thank you, Olivia Tanager. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Olivia Tanager. For the record, I'm the director of the CR Club's Toyabi chapter. Um, so our concerns with this project is that it opens up industrial use to potentially data centers. Um, which is an issue that we've talked about before this commission several times now. I'm sorry if you're tired of hearing of me, but I'm back again to raise our same concerns, and I I know there are forthcoming conversations about data centers and the ordinances pertaining there, too. Uh, unfortunately, we have not had those conversations yet, and therefore, if this project were to go through now, I'm concerned about the implications that data centers would have to the Reno community and specifically to this neighborhood. Um, I want to talk about, so there was some mention about the growth and reinvestment framework. Obviously, one of our biggest concerns with data centers is growth and reinvestment, right? Like where the money is coming from to pay for the data centers, where the money is coming from to pay for the energy that the serves the data centers, where the water is coming from. Uh and then one of the biggest concerns we've been raising with data centers are the tax abatements, right? And so we heard tonight about how we're in a budget shortfall. We agree it's a very big concern. And so if we're opening up industrial land to data centers and bringing not uh losing revenue as a result of that then that's a huge concern. Um further one of the other things that we've been talking about with data centers is the very low employment associated with data centers. Some of the data centers before this body you've heard have had 10 employees 15 employees very minimal employment. Uh that is not going to be enough employment to keep restaurants open at lunchtime. Um, so we're we're concerned about some of the consequences associated with this resoning. Um, we heard about higher paying jobs, more residents with larger incomes, increases uh in spending in local economy. Again, if we're opening it up to data centers, which seems to be a trend that we're seeing in the North Valleys, what kind of income are we going to see? How many jobs are actually going to materialize? um RTC, you know, we heard that RTC's service to the north valleys might be contingent on jobs. Shouldn't build data centers up there then uh because we're not going to have any RTC service. So, we um we there was some conversation about reducing water and sewer. Again, one of the concerns with data centers, especially because council just approved an evaporative cooling data center is the overall uh cumulative water footprint of data centers if we continue to allow evaporative cooling data centers that are very water hungry and water intensive. Um so two quick points from the Reno master plan. uh the use of sustainable development practices, water conservation, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and others will be encouraged to reduce the impacts of future growth and climate change on the city's air quality and the environment on a whole. We believe that that's uh directly a non-conformance with trying to encourage data center development, particularly in the north valleys, um for reasons that we've previously gone over. Um so I I think I'll leave it there. We're we're really concerned with the potential for a lot of data centers to move into the north valleys and the climate implications and the economic implications for Reno as a whole, but particularly for the North Valley's community. Thank you. Thank you, Brian Armen. Good evening, planning commission. My name is Brian Arman. I'm with NAI Alliance and I'm speaking in support of the zoning change requested by Stonegate. I lead the NAI team focused on advanced manufacturing and logistics and we've been very fortunate to work with many global companies that have relocated or expanded within our region. Most of these companies have been forced to locate their facilities east of town in areas with very limited or no labor. Expanding development opportunities will attract businesses worldwide that from worldwide that provide high-paying long-term employment opportunities at a time when the US government is working to increase demand for more manufacturing within the United States. This property is incredibly well located with immediate access to US 395 and does not bring unwanted traffic through neighborhoods. Expanding land development opportunities will drive demand for retail, restaurants, and other commercial businesses, offering more amenities to the North Valley community, which lacks those today. The project is estimated to create over 8,800 permanent jobs with higher paying jobs through the addition of manufacturing and assembly facilities. The reasoning will generate significant tax revenues, as was discussed, for the city of Reno and reduce the flight of property tax revenue east of town into another county. while also reducing city co service costs and providing additional funding for for essential services that benefit all residents of Reno. Stonegate's proposal reflects responsible forward-thinking development that comes at a time of growth in Americanbased manufacturing and I hope that you'll support the project. Thank you. Thank you. Mason Leond. Mason oh does not wish to make a statement in favor of the project though. Derek Carol also not wishing to speak but in favor. And uh that's all the comment cards. We do have a Zoom attendant with their hand raised. Um Rebecca when you're ready um you can unmute your mic and state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Hi my name is Becky Flannry. Um I'm a resident of Cold Springs. I'm a lifelong I'm I'm born and raised here in Reno and many of us moved out here for the quiet. We didn't want the city life. Um and this is going to have a huge impact. So I actually am one of the people that did meet with Stonegate at one of those um functions they held and they had discussed building what data centers out here. Um they have discussed uh digging into the ground to use the water um to you know facilitate those data centers which then takes away from the people that live over there that are on wells. How are they supposed to get their water when these people are draining it? Um we're already seeing a crime increase out here from all the building they've already done that like they said there is no bus that comes out here. Um, we do have fires. So, um, I mean, I have people that live on the border town side that have been evacuated multiple times. Um, how about the noise from the the the the buildings that they're building that we don't even know what they're building because they have absolutely no description of what they are actually putting out here. Um, yeah, I know they talked about data centers. Um, so this is going to increase our water with great basin water fees. This is going to increase our power bills. This is going to increase our property taxes. Um, most of us that live out here, we want to enjoy the wildlife. They want to go ride their quads, their side by sides, dirt bikes. They want to shoot their guns. Um, that's what people moved out here for. It's a very good little little local community that we love. How is this going to affect our gazing at the stars? I like to sit in my hot tub and stare at the stars at nighttime. Now, I'm going to have lights everywhere. Um, this is this is and actually a lot of this I pulled up staring at the master plan. This is this is not quality of life for the people out here. This is we're not going to have the public safety amenities we need. Um, where are the extra police coming from? Um, our schools are almost overcrowded already out here. So, even though they've reduced the amount of students, it's still we are still hitting our max for school. Um it's they're they're full. Um plus we're also in a valley. How much of this is gonna this noise from whatever they're building over here? How much of that noise is going to regurgitate over our whole entire valley and make it loud when it's a nice peaceful quiet little place to live? Um and they also discussed I've heard RTC will not widen White Lake Parkway until the years 2030 to 2050. So none of this is really benefiting us. Um, you know, we'd like a little grocery store. I've heard we're getting a grocery outlet out here. We're cool with that stuff. We don't need this massive development. Our traffic in the valleys is already atrocious. What used to take me 25 minutes to get to work. Now takes me almost an hour. And if it snows, it's taken me 3 hours. Um, so this does not benefit. This is not a good quality of life for the people that live out here. And going off of your own master plan, I've already hit on a multiple things that they actually lied about in there. in their little presentations. Um, how much is these housing units going to cost? Um, it's probably not going to be affordable. I mean, nothing is affordable. They always say affordable and it's never affordable for people. They say that these jobs are going to bring us, you know, larger incomes. These businesses, they move here, they're paying $16 an hour, these warehouse jobs. All right, we're over the time. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Did we have any other public comment? We did. We do have another couple participants. Um, Emily, when you're ready, you can unmute, state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Hi, my name is Emily. I was originally born and raised here in Reno, Nevada. Um, I was pretty much here since the day I was born. And I completely disagree with this whole project that's currently going on in the Cold Springs area. Um, Cold Springs is especially known here for stargazing, the ethereal nature, and also because of, you know, the lower cost of living. Majority of the people ended up moving here cuz, you know, they want quietness, they want peacefulness here. Like, I consider Cold Springs kind of much more of the quieter areas outside of all of Reno, pretty much. Um, I just think that ultimately this project will not do well for the Cold Springs community. I think it'll ultimately uh bring more traffic. It would bring more congestion. Currently, if I want my job is 30 minutes away and including with traffic since majority of the people here in Cole Springs work from a 9 to5. I think that ultimately it's going to cause more traffic. people are going to be late to work and we're not just gonna have a good chance. Um, I just think Cold Springs right now is just fine the way it is. And I think ultimately we're just fine really. I love it here. It's amazing. There's so much nature. I think people should just come here just to explore, just to scar stargaze. Um, but bringing in apartments, shopping districts, everything else is not a good good idea. But, uh, that's all I have to say. Uh, thank you. Thank you. We have one more participant. Kathy, when you're ready, you can unmute your mic, state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Hello. Hello. Well, I'm sorry. Um, I agree with the other ladies that have spoken here and we could speak until we're blue in the face and no one is going to listen to us. We don't want the data center out here. We our power has been out for like 28 hours straight and some of us are on oxygen and stuff like that and it's just horrible. But of course, none of you are going to listen to us, are you? So, I don't even know why I'm wasting my breath. Bye. Thank you, Kathy. You all right? I don't see any additional public comment cards. Does anybody wish to speak? All right. Closing public comment. Now, we will take question from the commissioners for staff or the applicant. Uh perhaps just a few clerical things. So we heard a lot of item uh this is for staff uh apologize the um the discussion about data centers that is a use that falls under industrial categories. Um help me understand are the are all data centers even when within this PUD are they uh still uh do they still go through the cup process? Correct. Yes. Yes. The data centers are subject to cups. So we would see that again if a data center came in um for approval within um the the parts parts that would be zoned industrial. Correct. Yes. Yeah. The there there would be numerous future entitlements among which cups for data centers were a CUP sorry were a data center to be proposed. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'll yield. Commissioner Delvr, for you, Jeff. Um, I have a I have a lot of questions, but um just wanted to start off this. I saw I've seen it a couple times lately, uh, where it says it's generally compatible. Can you explain generally compatible for me? Sure. Um, so in part, sorry, Jeff Foster for the record. um generally compatible. The what we do is a bit of art and a bit of science, right? Um it's probably a stretch to find something that's always compatible in all situations, right? So we look at things on balance and um so generally compatible means that it's not entirely compatible. There's industrial proposed adjacent to residential. Um in a in an ideal world, you wouldn't have industrial directly adjacent to residential, right? But on balance, in the overall scheme of things, um we find that the proposed request is generally compatible. Got it. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um and then we've gone through this a couple times before as well. So this is there's two things going on here. One is a zone change, correct? And the other is the master plan amendment. Correct. Okay. I just want to clarify that. Um and then as part of the master plan amendment, you had talked about three things specifically. Actually, everybody kind of brought this up. Um and then I just kind of want to cover it a little bit. Uh quality of life, neighborhood centers, and employment centers. So I'm trying to understand again how this sort of fits in with quality. We'll just start with quality of life and go to the others from there. So how how is how does this project sort of fit in with quality of life as per the master plan? So in terms of the quality of life, um the I think the argument that the applicant has made and that staff concurs with is that by reducing the amount of time that people are spending uh driving into the urban core of Reno um and having your the opportunity to have employment closer to home. Um you have an increased quality of life. You also have an increased quality of life by having services provided closer to where you live. services being again restaurants, you know, uh medical office, things like that. So, having those services closer to uh your your home versus again having to to to drive south to obtain them. Um you of course have the trails that are proposed. Um so you have a a formal trail um you know uh structure that would be providing access to the forest service lands and things like that. So those are some of the elements of quality of life that we were considering. Okay. And then just for clarification, yeah, I've heard this a couple of times as well, the services, but the services are ancillary to this project. There's not necessarily going to be doctor's offices and restaurants as part of this plan. Well, so again, you what what this body is considering tonight is a master plan amendment and a zone change that would allow uses Got it. uh allowed in the various zones that are proposed. So if we go back to this table here, um the the thought is that the zoning that is proposed would allow uh or facilitate uh up to about 210,000 ft of retail, commercial, and medical office space. So the future projects that would come down the pipeline over the next several years that would go through an entitlement process um uh some of them would certainly go through an entitlement process um that that those uh uh those are the the services or the the the uh uses that would become available to the residents in the area. Got it. And then if I might just if we can talk a little bit about the neighborhood centers and employment centers as well. So, so what neighborhood centers and employment centers are? Well, that's my question actually. It's listed in there as part of how this fits in with the master plan having neighborhood centers and employment centers and I'm just wondering what those are. So, I mean clearly um the employment center you've you've got a a the existing PUD is a residential PUD almost exclusively, right? If you can look to the the uh upper left corner, um you can see that it's 5,000 residential units with some medical or sorry, commercial and some uh industrial. The switch to the proposed uh zoning would facilitate much more industrial and commercial. So therefore, you have uh increased employment opportunities as opposed to being effectively a residential PUB. Um uh and then the neighborhood centers. Um the uh right here you can see so in the upper right hand corner of the screen on the right um you can see the suburban mixed use the pink area. Um that's the area that is being proposed to have general commercial zoning. And so you would see that would be the area where you would likely find uh a mixture of some kind of commercial that 290,000 square feet that that was on the previous slide. Um you would find you know those uses kind of targeted or concentrated in that area. Uh hence a bit of a neighborhood center. Got it. I will yield for now. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Ber for the record. Hey Jeff, how are you? Hello. I'm well, thank you. All right. Fantastic. I did kind of want to start off just by saying that as much as we're turning back the clock, I believe that was like a phrase mentioned, by considering taking the zoning of this land back potentially to what it was in 2006 uh or so. The reality is is that we're not in 2006 and the demands and needs of Reno are far different than what they were then. But I'm hoping that we can find some kind of sensible solution here tonight one way or the other. So, kind of with that, do you want to build upon uh Commissioner uh DelviR's line of questioning on some so quality of life timeline? So, um and and and maybe this is for the applicant themselves, but uh when timeline wise would Colt Springs residents be able to reap or experience the quality of life benefits that you just touched on? like are we talking about like a year or four years or so I I will certainly defer to the applicant for specifics but the general thought is that um you would have infrastructure first then you would have kind of more of the industrial uses that would then facilitate some of the other uses um I think Andy talked about that in his presentation but certainly Surey uh yes commissioner uh Basera Andy Drilling for the record uh if I can have my presentation up. I'd like to point out a picture. Sorry. Um so the the you know the quality of life as as Jeff kind of mentioned you know it's coming in a lot of different ways. Um you know whether it's you know providing more jobs in close proximity to where you're living right that's a not having to commute as far. That's a great quality of life effort or aspect. Um that comes obviously as employment grows. Um, and we're not talking about, you know, um, all of this industrial coming out of the ground tomorrow, right? That's going to happen over a number of years. Um, and so that will that jobs housing balance grows over time. Um, one thing that does come out of the ground kind of immediately, uh, you I just want to highlight, you know, the sewer service. So, this is an off-site sewer requirement. So um before they can hook up anything um for sewer service, they have to construct this um sewer main going around uh White Lake. And as I mentioned, one of the added benefits, not just, you know, for our project, but for the community at large, uh is a trail that's going to be about half uh half the the circumference or or diameter, whatever, halfway around um White Lake there. So that's that's a that's a you know kind of a quality of life for not just you know our people but also you know Cold Springs at at large. Um so some of those items you know especially um you know looking at it more longer term also you know medium to longterm access to public lands right there has not historically been access to public lands through this property adjacent to it and you know kind of through the California side things like that. Um but this opens it up. there's there's beautiful lands you know the forested kind of lands that are up above us in the US forest service um those become accessible to the public at large over time as well so we feel like there are a lot of various benefits to this um most namely obviously the employment um that's being added um u quality of life also you know I want to also kind of underscore right I talked about that fiscal impact and and how positive is to the city right that's reducing the burden on the rest of the taxpayers in the city of Reno uh it's providing additional surplus funds that are going to allow the city to take care of parks better and provide those community services and public services and safety services to a higher quality that maybe they can without a project like this over time. Great. Thanks, Andy. I'll just build upon maybe that theme with jobs and employment and uh um so thank you for the initial response. uh on on the revenue side, how is the annual generated revenue you shared in your presentation determined because it was like 70 million and some change and a few different figures. So, it's it's a formula based um and I actually Eugene Lmore who prepared that study uh is here and she can walk you through the specifics of it. But, um while she's getting up here, the fiscal analysis that's that's an adopted standard um that's a uniform standard that every project has to use the same calculation. So those are actually provided to us by the city um for um you know uh employment estimates, tax revenue estimates, things like that. And so Eugenia can provide a lot more detail if you have if you that'd be great. Okay, thank you so much. For the record, Eugenia Lurmore, EK Economic Consultants. Um, City of Reno in 2019 adopted City of Reno fiscal impact guidelines which outlined revenues and expenditure factors that are applied to residential units for residential purposes or to commercial um employees for industrial and commercial uses. So revenues are estimated using those factors that were provided by the city. They were adopted in 19 updated in 2023. The only other thing that we estimate independently of those guidelines are property taxes and tax taxable values for each of the uses. So for residential uses, for industrial uses, and for the retail uses, we're estimating using taxable values of surrounding properties in Cold Springs. So there's been a lot of talk of data centers. This analysis does not include the impact of data centers. We're using just industrial from the surrounding areas. If data centers come in, they generates tremendous amounts of revenues for the city, we're not including those in the analysis. Great. Thank you so much, Eugene. Appreciate it. And then just one last one for you, Mr. Andy. Um, you did mention the 8,800 new jobs would be created, but what type of jobs since you we know data centers are are low headcount more or less on average than uh warehouses for instance? Yeah. So, actually though that estimate of the 8,800 jobs comes out of Eugenia's study. So that is based on again to her point right it doesn't include data centers. It's based on kind of a a general industrial general commercial type um uses um that again those numbers are provided by the city for those estimates. Great. Thanks Andy. I have a few more around public services and so forth but I'll take a step back for a moment. Uh yeah Commissioner Jockman. So, uh, Madame Clerk, could you please pull up page six of exhibit A or I think it's the same as, um, slide six in this presentation. Uh, exhibit A to the staff report or or just go to slide six with the um, land uses. Yeah. Or five. Um, the one that shows it had red. I apologize. It's exhibit A page six. So yes, thank you. Um this question is for the applicant. So I'm and and that my intent in asking this question is to identify conformance with the area specific policy uh employment areas, industrial and logist logistic areas. One the overall mix. Um Mr. Foster noted that infrastructure is laid first. I recognize this is a master plan amendment. So you may not be able to speak to the phasing of the project, but can you speak to the um infrastructure that would be laid out initially as a part of the project? Um sure. For the record, Andy Drilling with Wood Rogers again. Um so yes, obviously infrastructure has to come first before uh they could break ground on anything. Um generally speaking, um right, access is key for any type of development. And so that's going to come from uh White Lake Boulevard there at the US 395 interchange. Um so that roadway extension happens first. Uh with that you would have water and sewer infrastructure would be in those backbone roadways. Uh I mentioned in my presentation and with some of the questioning already um the extension of uh a force man around White Lake that sewer uh happens phase one. Uh and then also for the water infrastructure, we would begin developing the on-site um wells and water resources to be dedicated to Great Basin Water Company um for for water service. Can you be specific regarding the infrastructure you would develop along the general commercial portions of this modified PUD uh and again working on identifying overall mix. So the general commercial um is on the north side there. Um, White Lake Boulevard already um, provides the access to it. There may be a widening uh, you know, turnpockets, things like that that may be required and phase over time and widened over time. Um, and then that sewer service is adjacent to that general commercial. Um, if the mouse works, uh, nope, it doesn't. Um, but, uh, right right on the map on the right side where it says GC in the red and White Lake, that that's, you know, essentially behind that would be the sewer service and we'd be extending water over there ultimately. So do you believe that buildout of infrastructure along those corridors that are zoned general commercial still uh would result in favor favorable conditions for development to occur in those general commercial zones. Absolutely. Industrial goes forward. Absolutely. And we actually um uh you know located that journal commercial kind of very specifically because you know one it helps to support um you know you know the the growing jobs and things like that for the need for services but also it's on the way home uh for folks that are going out to Woodland Village and and really the heavy residential you know portion of Cold Springs which is located on the north side of of White Lake. So it's it's got a quite a bit of separation from um from the proposed industrial that we are that we have proposed with this. Thank you. I yield. Commissionerto, did you have questions? Uh noble questions. Thank you. Okay. Um Commissioner Delvr, uh Andy, this is for you. Thank you. Um, so you we've talked a bit about some of the the jobs that will be created. Um, and so I'm just kind of curious, you know, we we've spoken before about some of the the types of industrial um, businesses you might have out there. So what are you sort of anticipating and how is this going to build 800 8,000 uh, jobs? Yep. No, absolutely. So um, like I said, you know, Commissioner Bera's comments, right, the the development happens over time. It'll happen over a number of years as um you know um users and things like that come in. Um this obviously doesn't um this is open this is this is standard zoning so it it allows for a number of uses that could come in. By and large, uh, what we're anticipating, what our market studies are showing, and I think what, uh, you heard from the gentleman from NI Alliance, who's a a broker here in town, um, you know, we're anticipating, there's a, um, growing emphasis for, uh, manufacturing jobs, manufacturing facilities, um, to be located in the US and especially in our favorable economic climate here in Nevada and with a bedroom base in northern or in in the north valleys here, we anticipate that that manufacturing aspect of industrial development will be a big one for us. Um there will still be kind of you know your traditional logistics businesses which are kind of the bread and butter of our market here. Um and maybe some small data centers over time but again those those are uh yet to be determined and and obviously would come through with you know conditional use permits before this body. Got it. Thank you. And uh I have some questions for you Jeff. Thank you. So um actually one question I have in particular is uh around the bond. Somebody mentioned the bond. Um was there a bond for the previous PUD that was there or was that I'm going to say Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record that I do not have an answer on that. I don't know what that's in. May I ask a followup? Was that related to the development agreement which had a performance bonding standard? For the record, Andy Derling, I'm not sure. Um, there was a special assessment district that was approved as part of the Stonegate PUB. Um, that may be what's referred to, but a special assessment district isn't necessarily a bond that hits um taxpayers. It's a self-imposed tax on the property itself. So, not really apples and oranges there. Was there a development agreement with this project or strictly a PUD? There were development agreements associated with the fire um fire agreement and the parks agreement. Those are technically development agreements. So yes. Okay. And then those would have had performance standards or bonding. Should those not be made is should you not build a fire station in a set amount of time? I don't know the those details, but those would be obviously those were based on the residential development and have to be redone when this is reszoned. Of course. I I would think they would be nullified. Um not necessarily, but it's not really applicable, right? It's it's still an agreement in place, but it's hard to enforce it because there's no residential development to tie it to. Okay. Thank Thank you for that clarification. So, I think this is still for Jeff. Um, so we talked about uh the previous uh PUD had uh fire, fire safety, police, and uh that was based on residential, but now we're going to have potentially 8,000 employees. Is is there any issue around public safety with that many people coming and going or the buildings or the type of manufacturing they're doing? So, um the the uh Chief McNamera is here to speak on fire if we want to pull him in to address, but the the general um theory is that residential going to industrial and commercial reduces the uh need for services in terms of both fire and u traditional public safety RPD type of thing. um that that that the uh uh you don't you don't have the the residents um uh you know requiring services at the same level um when you have the the commercial and and industrial development. So that's why all of the numbers shift to uh to shift downward with the current proposal um in relation to you know sewage, water, calls for services, all of those numbers shift down. The only thing that shifts up is the number of employees. Okay. So commissioner Yeah. Yeah. If I if I can kind of piggy back on to what what Jeff said, there are fire agreements in place with with the PUD. This change would not nullify those agreements. However, those agreements were based on the Stonegate PUD, which was essentially, for lack of a better term, a small city. It included 5,000 homes, two schools, you know, a variety. I think we would all agree that that agreement would not necessarily reflect this updated plan, but that would have to be amended through council action. Got it. Um, should this go through. Okay. Thank you. That's I'll yield for now. Commissioner Williams, for the record, I got something for the applicant. Thank you sir. My commissioners have asked some very smart questions. I'm going to switch it up a little bit for you. Um, by my math it looks like traffic is reduced by about 10,000 um, average daily trips. And also by my math it looks like there's about 18 million bucks in impact fees going to RTC, which I think is great. Um, but the report defers pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure details to future entitlements. I worry that if you don't identify it now because of the heavy industrial use and still 50,000 ADTS that it's going to become less important. So there's any way you could set just me personally at ease and and maybe talk about those those two things because it is in the master plan. Yeah, absolutely. Um Commissioner Williams for the record again, Andy Derling. Um so with respect to pedestrian and bicycle facilities um because this is straight zoned u property right we the development of this going forward is going to be uh regulated in its entirety essentially by Reno municipal code and the public works design manual for the city of Reno. Um both of which require sidewalks bike lanes you know the standard details for street sections require you know those those elements. Uh in addition to that, I kind of shared in our presentation what we've heard kind of input from uh from the community and and from other stakeholders is, you know, um you okay, sidewalks great through an industrial area, right? You know, people are still going to be able to walk, but there's still a desire maybe for uh employees to have uh opportunities to get out during break times and have uh you know, recreational opportunities. So, we will be looking to incorporate also a trail system um throughout the industrial. So that adds to that kind of additional options for um pedestrian and bicycle opportunities. Awesome. So still a priority just not identified currently and a requirement. I would say more than a priority as a requirement. Awesome. All right. Thank you, sir. You bet. Commissioner Biser for the record maybe for Mr. Foster. Jeff Jeff, hey, just for clarity, the I think uh Commissioner Delviar was just kind of touching on this and Chair Roer about the I couldn't remember if it was a developer agreement or community benefits agreement, one or the other, but just for clarity, the um those prior PEUD agreements or uh community benefit agreements around public services like water connection to Tamwa, sewer connection with Reno infrastructure and emergency fire services. Those are things that can still be renegotiated at the city council level if things pass tonight. Or maybe Mr. Mike knows too. If I can get my microphone to work. That that is correct. Okay, good. That's good to know. Kind of does bring a little uh ease uh to my heartburn around taking some of those things potentially away just, you know, on the whim. So, that's good. Um, and I guess, uh, let me see, maybe for the applicant, I guess it would be, uh, Andy, you know, yourself or, you know, for the developer. Um, how do they plan to partner with Cold Springs residents moving forward, especially those concerned with the traffic, the quality of life, uh, the light concerns and employment access? Sure. Uh so Andy Derling again for the record um I think um with respect to say traffic right I think we we outlined quite a bit um Commissioner Williams noted right it's a significant reduction in potential traffic that's generated by this project than what's currently approved so from that perspective you know we're we're empathetic right we understand that the commute you know south in the morning and north in the afternoon is is difficult on 395 especially right now with all the construction going on um this project shifting this project from a predominantly residential to a predominantly, you know, employmentbased um switches that, right? So now you don't necessarily you're not competing with other homes that are in this area trying to do the same thing you are commute to to to the our urban center. Um you get some reverse commutes, you get folks that are, you know, able to work in closer proximity. So from a track standpoint, we feel like this change actually does work with those residents to address some of those concerns in the long term. Um, additionally, you know, I mentioned kind of some of the broader community benefits. White Lake Trail, things like that, access to public lands. Those are all great things because that's, you know, those are the recreation like like um the individual said, right? They like to have the sidebysides and and and recreate um, you know, in public lands probably. Um, this is going to provide additional opportunities to access those public lands. Great. Thanks, Andy. I'm just going to pivot it to the water for a second because many nearby residents in Cold Springs, even if it's on the other side of White Lake, you know, do rely on on domestic wells. How has the long how has the potential long-term impact of large scale industrial use on both water quantity and quality been modeled and what mitigation or protections can be implemented to safeguard existing well users? So, um, right now, uh, and actually, can I get my presentation? I'll point to that water slide I had. I I do better with pictures. Okay. So, right now on on the map, um the blue area, you see White Lake, obviously the the big um spot there in the middle uh on the left side. The big blue area is the current um Great Basin Water Service Territory. Um, so it's essentially all on the north side, uh, by and large of of White Lake. All of their wells and water resources are on the north side of of of White Lake. Um, with the development of Stonegate, with the, um, annexation of Stonegate into Great Basin's um, water district. Um, we will be developing additional water resources on the south side of White Lake. Um, geologically speaking, White Lake is a giant clay layer. Um that's what you see there is actually groundwater that's seeping up through the clays. Um and so it's kind of a barrier for them right now. And so by connecting the north and the south, it provides them with greater resiliency over time. So it's a it's a benefit that's another benefit for the the residents of Cold Springs that you're developing additional water resources in the basin. Um, additionally with this, you know, Stonegate um, PUD, the residential PUB, um, was required to to have Tumbla water, Church of Meadows Water Authority water as the primary source. Um, we're changing that and going to Great Basin and the on-site as the primary water source. The benefit of that is now you're not introducing outside water into the basin so that it's compounding issues of um you know flood water and additional groundwater in the basin because all of that ground water or all that water that's coming into the basin is being treated in the basin and reinjected in the basin. So from a from a broader water balance um it's it's a good thing to have um in in basin water resources. Great. Thanks Andy. Quick follow up on that too cuz the the map kind of triggered a a uh I don't know some memory and I know that technically it's the California side but uh I'll just mention it like there are a lot of farmers and ranchers along Long Valley there just right across right right behind and so they're not necessarily protected by that geological clay of wide lake and many of them do have uh generational roots in Nevada so to some extent got to consider them neadans uh with deep ties, would their water be impacted? Uh, that's a totally different um I would say no on a surface. Um because you know the the water that's been generated, you know, Stonegate water is a combination of of surface and groundwater. Um it dates back to the 1800s, right? It's it they're very old um senior water rights that are in that basin. And so they've they've had those used those for um a century. And I, you know, the folks that are in California, they're dealing with California water law. It's very different than that of Nevada. How it works in the basin, I don't know. It's okay. And I I think, you know, I'll go back to what we discussed earlier with Mike and Jeff and a few others that uh how everything's unfold tonight. There's an added uh layer of opportunity for for y'all to negotiate solutions with our fellow city council members as well. So I would add to, you know, I mentioned about, you know, water balance. Yeah. Um, Washer County is actually going through a water balance study right now. Um, so it's taking into account kind of that it's a it's a broader look at um these closed basins to look at how water balance can better be achieved. And so again, we feel like the approach that we're um uh going for, the kind of the road we're headed down with the water and and sewer um treatment here is is a better thing for uh Cold Springs Valley in the long run. Okay, great. Thank you so much. And maybe it's for the applicant. last one just because it's been mentioned a lot and you all know how I feel about data centers and uh not not necessarily that I'm against. It's just more like the lack of guidelines right now which I'm hopeful we'll we'll get there. Uh but are there any uh data center folks that are in the queue uh that that that would more or less circumvent our our guideline timeline that we're aiming to do? Yeah. So, no, not that I'm aware of. And and to give you an idea of kind of timeline, I mean, we're at the the kind of nency of this, right? We you have to get our master planning and zoning in place. Um this process that we're in right now is going to take the better part of this year, right? We've got to go to council. We've got to go to regional planning um commission, right? That takes time. Um then after that, it's not like we can just, you know, submit a building permit for anything, right? We've got to do um as was mentioned earlier, the backbone infrastructure needs to come first. Uh, interestingly, you know, coming out of the gates, um, um, that extension of White Lake uh, Parkway into to provide our primary access crosses a major drainage way. We'll be back in front of you with a disturbance to a major drainage way, major site plan review. Um, probably some other cuts and fills, grading, things like that that are associated with the backbone infrastructure construction. Um, that takes time for us to prepare. It takes time obviously to submit to the city for staff and then to get back in front of you guys. So, we're a couple years out from, you know, probably breaking ground, but Okay. Yeah. Thanks for that, Andy. And with that, um, for the rest of the commission, I'm pretty much ready for deliberation when everyone else is. Uh, Commissioner WR, I have a few few more questions. Sorry. Um, I believe they're probably for Andy. Uh, we're talking about the regional water balance study that's going on. And I believe I read in one of these presentations that development impacts cannot be quantified. um and specific mitigation recommendations cannot be identified at this time. So what what what is the timing on that and what are some of the potential issues that might come up with that? Sure. So I guess it's you know this is unique because um we're in front of you for a master plan amendment and a zone change and typically you know if I'm if I'm here on another project I don't have all the data and studies backing it up. Um but because the PUD had progressed so far, we have sewer studies, drainage studies, all of that. So, you know, and we're able to estimate at least, you know, kind of the order of magnitude of development um into the future. Um and so with that, you know, there's a comfort level, I think, in sh you know, we shared a lot of that, uh with city staff. Um we shared a lot of uh data to you know kind of say hey you know we're still a project of regional significance based on our estimates of this development um and you know kind of volunteered to take that to the the uh regional planning commission. Um so this is in a unique spot that you know um as developers kind of like to say you know they didn't stop developing this. the use is changing uh of the property, but they haven't stopped developing it. And all that work that's been done over the last five years is not, you know, in the trash. It's something that we can use. And we've been working with a lot of the, you know, and RTC, the city, uh, Great Basin Water, uh, Wo County, you know, on those infrastructure needs, um, to to help them understand it, but also to help us move this thing forward. Got it. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, that's all I have for now. Are we ready to deliberate? Okay. Would you like to start word four? Sure. Maybe. Here we go. Um, yeah. Thank you. And and to your to your last point, Andy, again, the the process didn't stop, right? You guys have been focused on some things and and moving some things around. Um, you know, my my concern, um, again, being from W 4, obviously data centers is a huge concern I have. Um, and again, not that I'm opposed to them, just that we don't necessarily have any any rules and regulations around them and and that may or may not be true for some of the advanced manufacturing that that we're looking at. Um, I'm not I'm still not sure I understand where these 8,000 employees are coming from, if they're coming from Norths or they're going to be moving to North Valleys. Um, I'm still not sure about like timing on when we might see some more services. It sounds like it's going to be several several years um from now, which which which I understand. I get I get these things take time. Um but I think the the big issue for me um really is is the uh the quality of life um right now. And um so so I'm having a hard time sort of balancing that. uh you know there's you know even with the with the residential there's just there's a little bit more um I don't know open space um things for people to do communities and and I'm just concerned that if we just market is industrial it just opens it up for um all all kinds of things to sort of move in there and again it was substantial it's 11 times increase in industrial/wwarehouse usage um And uh again, for me, I you know, I just have concerns with the with the quality of life that that might might bring to it. And you know, we can say that there's going to be employment, which would be great, but there's still we're still lacking some other services in the area. Um so those are my those are my big concerns right now. I'll uh maybe perhaps I'll continue on this line of thinking. Um I'm really torn here. I'm torn on this one. I appreciate straight zoning as opposed to a PUD for 1,700 acres. I think it's nice because it doesn't tie up all that land in a PUD and it can change more fluidly with the city code updates. I think that's a really good thing for planning as our city continues to change. Not going to lie, I don't love this jump from 950,000 ft of industrial to 11.75 million square ft. That's a pretty substantial increase. Um and the zoning isn't IC or mixed employment. It's indust industrial which is the most permissive use. Um so it doesn't seem to me to follow some sort of density transact or it just sort of creates incompatibilities. There's single family larger lots and then industrial. Um now that can be remedied through a lot of site planning. But you know what we're looking at today does sort of open the door for everything to follow to be a conforming use. um and you know those coop the cups the tenative maps you're giving us con you know the heaviest industrial and everything will likely conform to that um because you know it sets the bar very low um I'm concerned I certainly could buy into your vision of advanced manufacturing I hope that comes and it you know is realized that's certainly a wonderful thing if it happens for Reno right now we seem to have a surplus of of distribution and warehousing facilities ities that are unoccupied. So, I'm not sure. I I again, I'm not hearing the stats, but I can point to Airways Center. I can point to McKenzie. I can point to an Amazon building. That's millions of square feet of unoccupied distribution that's just sitting here with no real tenants of, you know, interest. So, are is this the valley? Is this the vision of North Valleys? cuz we've heard tonight from residents and we've heard for years prior to this that that is not what is wanted and ward for. So, you know, convince me that that's the thing that we really need to sort of pull our economy out of a troubled state. And then lastly, I you know, I just want to remind this board that we need a super majority to pass this because it's a master plan amendment. So, that's five votes. It will go to city council regardless, but um you know the planning commission has a valuable voice in this decision making. Okay, Commissioner Jockman. So yeah, you touched on a good point there that um one thing that we hear from the uh the residents and is certainly I've experienced this with the uh challenges in um trying to bring commercial uses to North Valleys. Um, so my understanding is that, you know, we're going from housing to industrial, not not necessarily a um um a a use type that residents are looking at getting or or would like to see up there. Uh my reason in asking the question regarding overall mix is because that is an area specific policy that is uh in my understanding of utmost importance to the um folks in ward 4 and um an overall mix obviously is talking about multiple land use types associated with um industrial development. So the reason I asked the question regarding the infrastructure was to see if um some of those components that are very prohibitive to develop things like restaurants are going to be in place to be more conducive for those types of land uses to come up in the future. Um that was that was my main reason in asking that question. And so, uh, what I heard was that, you know, basically today if we were to try and put a restaurant in those general commercial zones, um, it would be too expensive. Uh, if we get water infrastructure, the added transportation infrastructure along those corridors, um, it's easier for me to make the findings with regard to overall mix. I'll yield. Sure. Commissioner Ber for the record. Um just my thoughts are that uh as I shared earlier at the start that this is not 2006. Even though this resoning reflects what the land may have looked like back then I think the needs of Reno and its residents, those in Cold Springs and as a whole um in 2025 demand smart from the start planning. I am semi-comforted with the fact that prior community benefit agreements like emergency services, water services, and other infrastructure that the community needs can still be renegotiated at the city council level. I wish I could say I'm 100% confident, but I've seen that our advice and suggestions and our decisions as a commission have not been heated before when arriving at council and often without explanation as to why. So any support of this project would be given with serious pause, if not heartburn, but I'm not sure I'm even there yet. So with that, would staff or the applicant wish to add any last thoughts for consideration? Um I appreciate uh Andy Derling for the record. Appreciate the comments. Um you know, Commissioner Roar Meer, Commissioner Bera, um you know, addressing your concern about you know, the size, right? Uh it yes it it's a lot of industrial um we feel when you look at it in the broader economic standpoint of the city of Reno we need a project like this um you mentioned 2006 this was a zoning on it obviously it changed in 2018 um I've been around enough to where you know I've been planning in in this valley for about or in this in this region for you know 25 plus years um 15ish years ago or so in the you know 2010 era um regional planning agency See Turkman's regional planning did a industrial lands needs assessment. Um they did that assess assessment and the conclusions of it to kind of paraphrase was we do at that time we do not have as uh you know Reno Sparks region adequate supply of larger industrial parcels in order to accommodate for those larger manufacturing uses that Edon and the city of Reno and the city of Sparks are working so hard to attract here for jobs. Um, and I think when you look at the, you know, we obviously that, you know, we've had some development and now 15 plus years later, when you look at it more anecdotally, I don't have the the data in front of me, but anecdotally, you look around town, there's not a lot of large tracks of land where we could facilitate um, major employers coming to our region. We cannot compete in Reno with Taho Industrial Center, the city of Fernley, or even Fallon and the Hazen projects that are going on east of us. So from our perspective, the city needs this. The city needs a viable resource of industrial land to be able to attract employment um to the city, not just to our region, so that those tax dollars aren't going to the county east of us. They're not going to uh or counties east of us, but they're staying here to be able to um be utilized by by our city for our residents. So from that perspective, I think this this is something we need. Um it hasn't, you know, it's it's interesting. Yeah, it it's changed since 26 2006, but we've kind of come full circle and back to the need for this type of project. Thanks Andy. So, I um this is maybe for for Mike. I'm not really sure um or if anybody else has any any thoughts on it. So, I think part of it is, you know, going from again 900 acres to 11 million acres of industrial. Is there another designation that might ease people's concerns? And so what the applicant has requested is industrial. Are there other zoning designations that would comply with there are whether that meets, you know, their anticipated needs? I can't speak to that. Um other conforming districts, for example, Icy would be another conforming zone. Um, you could even do an SPD, for example. I mean, there's a variety of zones that conform, but the applicant has presented us with industrial. Um, I would, you know, that would definitely be a question for them. Got it. So, my question for you, Andy, have you would you or have you considered other designations? Um, yes. Um, but by and large, you know, industrial does, you know, to chair Roire's point, right? It does provide flexibility. Um I I kind of got up on my soap box there and and provided kind of our our heartfelt speech about why we need this, but you know, flexibility helps to add to that, right? Um some of those advanced manufacturing type job um uses um may or may not be allowed in say an IC or uh mixed employment me um zones which are less intense. Um when you look at it um Jeff shared with you kind of early on in his presentation and remarks that you know general compatibility right in when you look at this it's a little bit of an island right it is we don't have a lot of residential adjacent to us uh we're adjacent to a freeway um and it's a it's kind of a blank slate from from that perspective that kind of led us to then this is an appropriate location for industrial zoning rather than the less intense uh industrial for commercial or mixed employment. So, um what we did then to mitigate some of those things is, you know, there's built-in open space buffers on the northern edge there adjacent to those county lots. Um and as Jeff mentioned, right, that came back from county community, Washington County planners that that was adequate um for those as we come forward, right, even those uses up in that area are going to require an added level of discretionary review by the city whether it comes to this body or as administrative. So there are there are safeguards um safety valves kind of built into code um that we feel are appropriate and to again chair Wormire's um point right it's a good thing to you use straight zoning and and use a city zoning code because as you guys see issues that arise or new uses and things like that you you have the ability with the city council to then um levy additional restrictions or levy you know new standards things like that. So, as the city evolves, this project and as the city's code evolves, this project evolves with it. Maybe could I ask uh if you wanted to talk about flexibility? What about mixeduse zoning? It's still in the books in Reno. Uh I would look to suburban mixed use would probably be the most close. That actually opens it up far more flexible, right? It's um you know, higher density uh residential. I think the industrial is limited if I remember. Um you could do industrial on I think it's limited to to in size uh as well size of building as well as um you know kind of more logistics businesses if I if I recall totally going off memory so please forgive me I'm not so that would be the concern with that. Okay thank you. May I just chime in on something? Commissioner Bisera, you uh afforded uh us an opportunity to provide a little bit more thought um on things. I would also point out that um early on you you may have noticed that the uh case number on this is LDC 24. This project has been in the queue for a year now. Uh and the reason or there are multiple reasons but one of the reasons is because there's been an ongoing kind of dialogue about what's the appropriate zone, what are the appropriate zones uh dealing with the fire and public safety agreements, dealing with the parks agreements, things like that. So um what I'm saying is that uh for example, the uh application originally came in with I believe SF11, is that right, Michael? Um and uh in response to staff's comments early on a year ago um uh we were able to negotiate with them to reduce that from SF11 to SF5 which dramatically reduces the potential residential unit yield um on the available single family acreage. So point being that the applicant has been flexible in terms of of uh kind of addressing staff concerns. Similarly on the um you know the the fire and and parks agreements. We've been in in conversation with them for months on these topics. And so um none of this has been done on a whim in terms of kind of is it's been carefully thought out, carefully analyzed over time. um and you know and have come forth with uh you know what what the applicant believes and staff concurs is is an appropriate um land use paradigm. Um in terms of quality of life, Commissioner Delvr, um I think maybe one of the things that you're chiming in on and that I missed earlier that I'd like to come back around and and address is we heard multiple comments from the public in terms of, you know, looking at the night sky and and things like that. Um so I would surmise and and posit that um having 5,000 residential units versus 1350 residential units there's the potential that you would potentially have a lot more kind of light uh you know versus uh uh industrial uses that are you know kind of focused and again as Andy pointed out you still have code that uh requires uh you know downward opt or uh you know lighting uh you know reducing light spillage things like that. So um I I think that those kinds of issues uh are inherently addressed by the nature of the use uh that is uses that are you know proposed change from residential um but then also again by code and subsequent entitlements that will be required to uh be uh undergone right like gone through I don't know how to say noise and light throughups and stuff like that for Okay thank you thanks Jeff I wanted to Um, see if Commissioner Velto had any deliberation. Um, I I think I feel a little more comfortable with uh what what's being proposed. And I you know, we asked there's been a lot of questions that ask about kind of whether or not there's a need for this type of project. And I I guess I tend to assume that when an applicant comes forward seeking an MPA or a zoning map amendment and they have a specific request, um they've done their diligence and they've evaluated the need for the project in a manner that is uh more sophisticated than I think we can do as a planning commission. Um, so I I I don't like the idea of trying to push the applicant into a different type of zoning when I think they've done they've obviously done an assessment and been able to project what type of needs there are they there are for this area. Um, I feel comfortable making the the findings and I think a lot of my analysis really comes from uh frankly that I think the graphs depict this very well in the staff report. the the charts that show the current acreage under the PUD versus the proposed acreage. And I while this does lead to more industrial uh acreage, I think a lot of the other acreage types are fairly consistent with what has been proposed and the type of you know industrial or the type of commercial uses or industrial uses that we can foresee in the future that would be beneficial um and consistent with the master plan if we move towards that with through their uh uh by approving the application I think would be uh beneficial. icial for the city and consistent with how I think that the master plan expects us to uh to evaluate projects. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? Sure. No, I was going to add to Commissioner Jackman. I was going to add to Commissioner Sarah's comment. I guess the quality of life component. Um, often times applicants will perhaps state that there is a um, decrease in trips associated with the project. And it's not always easy to believe, but obviously regardless of the the use type, if it is an employment center of any kind, um, those trips are going to be going towards that facility in the AM peak hours. um if we had this as residential, it would not be that case and that would create even more impact as it is entitled currently on the um 395 commute southbound in the morning. So, making the change to a different land use, even if we don't love that land use, make no mistake, it'll it'll u all seek will help the uh morning commute for folks in W 4. Great. Thank you, fellow commissioner. I uh do want to add to that that um once upon a time uh all those homes were justified as great, right? So one way or the other we'll we'll find good in something. And I think it's it's our job to try to find what's businessfriendly yet resident responsible. And so I I do want to, you know, thank Andy and Jeff for their added thoughts. Uh, I do appreciate Andy's diligence and and his team that they've undergone for over a year and Jeff your collaboration and guidance all the time. Um, and I do support my fellow commissioners who strive to always strengthen what's before us uh and not just take it at face value because there's always room for improvement. And so, um, yeah, I I guess we'll have to do maybe a roll call vote and see see where things fall. Yeah, I think roll call is going to be valuable here. Go ahead. Did you have some comments? Can I say something? Yes. Um I This one's extremely difficult for uh difficult for the new guy. Um so I've been kind of silent trying to grab my thoughts here. It's very complex and it's an area that I by far am least familiar with. So I've been listening to those that have experience there and it's very important. Um something just when I when I look at the positives to this, I look at the reduction in water by 60% um which is a a big concern here. Um I look at the reduction in average daily trips from that area um by 10,000 u a day. Um, and I look at the um the relation of the master plan as far as um economic and industrial growth goes. And for me, when I think about those things, I I live in a community that is close to 3,000 homes. And I can tell you the complications that uh communities of those size bring. And um to me when I look at this and the reduction in size of the potential that what is currently approved um I find greater peace in that. Um I would agree with you that the industrial thing is tough and I I can't say that I would um sign up and raise my hand to have that next to my community. But um I also know that um large communities bring a a large population and a large demand of services. And so, um, I've kind of moved past that and, um, I think I'm fairly comfortable with the making those findings. So, I appreciate you guys putting all this input in for the new guy. No. Um, I'm not as convinced on the due diligence here. I I kind of think maybe the big driver was hey here's a land use that doesn't require a lot of upfront infrastructure cost and thereby that will be the direction by which we move forward. This is a lot of land. This is a lot of available land left in the city of Reno for growth. There aren't a lot of other spaces left like that. Um, so this is an important decision and yeah, I I'm just I don't see the compatibility the way the zoning map is designed today. Any other deliberations? Well, somebody's going to have to make a motion and then we can vote on it. Sure. So, um, based upon, uh, let make sure I have the right one here. Based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend that the city that city council adopt the master plan and zoning map amendments by ordinance subject to conformance review by the regional planning commission. and we'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Belal second. Commissioner Biserero. Um, not there yet. Just can I take a pass? Um, back to you, Commissioner Delvr. No. Based on quality of life and incompatibility. Commissioner Williams, I'm a yes. Chair Roier, no. On the issue of incompatibility, Commissioner Visera, that was quick. Uh, I I'm a no for the same issues as my fellow commissioners here. And if if we need specificity, master plan amendment B, uh, zoning map amendment 1B and 1 M. Believe the motion fails. Uh, you never asked me for my vote. You made the I You made the motion, so I figured it was a yes. Sure. Yep. Okay. Okay. Well, um, we can read the appeal since this was set to go to city council anyway, but let's see, where is the appeal statement? Any final action, not including recommendations or failure to take action by the planning commission, may be appealed to the Reno City Council by the applicant, the mayor or city council member, or any person who is agrieved by the action or interaction. An appeal together with the fees must be filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk. Madam Cher, I could also clarify this will go, as you mentioned, to council regardless. um the the applicant does have the ability to appeal which would protect certain um legal rights should this uh move further. So just want to clarify that. Thank you Mike. All right we have uh another development hearing and that is ranchera planned unit development master plan amendment and handbook. Do we know if it's being presented by the same um it is Mr. Derling? Yeah. Well, I maybe Stacy Huggin, are you presenting on Rancher Andy Darling? Okay, we can give a minute. Should we ask him if he would like a break? Why don't we just take five minutes? Yeah. Okay. They got All right, let's reconvene. Thank you. And we'll start with Oh, don't worry about it. We'll start with a presentation from Leah. Yes. 4.5. Uh, no. That's just an exhibit. Do you know when we get back in session? All right. Well, good evening members of the commission. For the record, my name is Leah Picotti and I am an associate planner with the city of Reno Development Services and this evening I am presenting the application for the Ranchera planned unit development master plan amendment and handbook amendment. So this branch here, I think everybody's familiar with where it's located, but it's just south of of McCarron and to the west of 580 and kind of the to the north of Delmonte. It is 140 141 acre site. And today we're looking at two different requests. So request number one is to amend amend the handbook. And generally that's to eliminate the equestrian center land use designation and create village 8. So we're replacing equestrian center with village 8 to reduce the total number of units from 722 units to 469 units. And to modify the objectives of the PUB by removing all references to equestrian and writing facilities. And finally to update the flexibility section. And there's some other minor amendments in there just related to updates and code conformance. The second request is for a 6acre site. This is a master plan amendment. This is where the current equestrian center um site land use area is located. And what they're asking to do here is to go from parks, greenways, and open space to single family neighborhood. So here on the screen you can see the existing land use plan for Ranchera. That equestrian center parcel is down on the bottom in green there. Generally the key issues that were analyzed in this request were the total number of units for Ranchera, the density of the equestrian center and the proposed village 8, uh the conformance of the handbook with Reno Municipal Code and the master plan amendment. So I'm going to go through each one of those and kind of talk about what the request is, what the background is, how we analyze that, and what the result of the approval would mean. So start high level here with the total number of units. So the request before you today is to reduce the total number of units from 722 units to 469 units. To give you some background on this, back in 1995 when Rancher was originally approved, it was approved for 188 units. And that was for 155 units plus 33 units on the equestrian center parcel should the equestrian center ever no longer be there. So, just want to point out that it has been the plan to develop single family on the equestrian center site since the inception of Ranchera. In 2015, there was an amendment to the handbook that changed it from 188 units to 722 units. This was specifically for 691 units plus 31 units on the equestrian center should it ever go away. So I've been working on ranchera projects for the last couple of years and I hear a lot of public comment. I talk to a lot of residents and one of the things that I always hear is that the HOA board which is totally out of the purview of zoning and the CCNRs is directly related to the number of units. So, one of the things that I've heard is that now that we're getting a little closer to buildout, 722 units is never going to be achieved. And therefore, the residents of Ranchera will never get majority control of their HOA board. And this has been a problem that has been brought up over and over to City of Reno staff again and again. But I do want to reiterate that those CCNRs and that HOA is really out of the purview of me as a planner and the city of Reno. We don't have enforcement over it. We don't enforce the HOA. We don't enforce those CCNRs. It's just something that has been brought up by the residents. So what you see on your screen here is the thresholds at which the residents of Rancher gain control of that homeowners association. So basically it's a three member board and at 25% they get one elected member at 50% they get two elected members and at 75% they get the whole three elected members. So, as you can see in the middle where it says current 722 units, that 50% threshold where they'll get majority control would be 361 units. Well, I've heard over and over they're never going to reach that 361 units and they're never going to get control. As of today, or as of I guess March of 2025, my understanding is that 292 units have been sold. So with this proposed reduction in units to 469, that would mean that 234 units would need to be sold for the residents to get 50% that meet the 50% threshold for them to get two residents elected and then one assigned by the declarant. So basically that would put them at 62%. So my understanding is that if we approve this request to reduce the number of units, it's going to benefit the residents of Ranchera by giving them control of their HOA board. So let me just go back to that for a second. So result of this request the result in the reduced number of units is that the overall density of ranchera is reduced from 5.1 units to 3.3 dwelling units per acre and that the residents will gain maturity control of that HOA board. All right, moving to the next item density of the equestrian center/proposed village 8. So the request is to increase the total number of units from 7 to 29. Right now, the way that the handbook's written allows for one dwelling unit per acre. The that area is 7.2 acres. So, right now, they would be allowed to have seven units. Um, I think everybody here knows that the equestrian center is gone. It's been demolished. So, right now, it's just vacant land. And I heard something earlier that there's no dwelling, there's no density if it's this dense in Ranchera, but that's not true. Um, so to the to the middle of the site where you can see 4.5 dwelling units per acre. Directly to the north of that you have six dwelling units per acre. To the northeast you have 6.5 dwelling units per acre. To the east you have 34 dwelling units per acre. And to the south you have one dwelling unit per acre. However, that was developed using cluster development. So those lots that are adjacent are actually like 0.4 to 6 acres. There's no full actual 1acre lots in there. Additionally, when they did that cluster development proposal, they preserved 2.4 acres of open space between the equestrian center and those lots. So, from a planning perspective, um, when you have a difference in density like that, that's exactly what you want. Code would require like 30 feet or 50 feet. That's like 70 feet kind of in the middle, a little more on one end, a little less on the other. So from a planning perspective, the four point the four point dwelling units per acre is appropriate for this site, especially since the entire city of Ranchera is being dropped by 280 something units. So again to give you a little background, 1995 they allowed essentially two dwelling units per acre on that site. 2015 they dropped it to one dwelling unit per acre. 2018 they dropped the whole site to 7.2 2 acres still at one dwelling unit per acre. So the result of this approval would be that the overall density of the equestrian center village 8 will be increased from one dwelling unit per acre to 4.5 dwelling units per acre. So conformance with Reno Municipal Code. Um, I did I did read some um letters from residents who were concerned about this section, but I think that maybe there was a little bit of a misunderstanding. So, this request is to update the flexibility section to reflect the current Reno Municipal Code processes and other like little miscellaneous updates to just bring this into conformance. So, the current handbook was done in 2018. In 2021, Reno Municipal Code Title 18 was completely revised and lots of zonings were changed, different processes were added. So, what you see on the top there is the zoning district conversion table. So, there were references in the handbook to like SF-15, which no longer exists, and F SF9 no longer exists. So some of those corrections were just putting them to the to the correct zoning district so that in the future when planners look at this and they don't remember that we had SF9 or SF-15 they can see that what it is. The other thing is that the flexibility section of the handbook specifically states that um minor deviations are permitted. Anything over 10% requires variance. Well, the reason that that was there was because at that time only minor deviations and variances existed in the 2021 update. We added major deviations and alternative equivalent compliance to that list. So all this update is doing is saying you can go through a major deviation, you can go through an alternative equivalent compliance if you need deviations from the standards. There was some comments made where people said this is just another way for them to put more units. Not. That's not true. That's not possible. They cannot exceed, should this be approved, they can exceed the 469. This is more like I have an application right now for somebody who wants to have a a 7 ft fence rather than the required 6ft fence. So, she's going through a major deviation. Even not having those things in code, we can still as the city allow the applicants to apply for that major deviation or that alternative equivalent compliance. This just adds them to the handbook. It's a formality. So the result of this is that the handbook would conform to Reno municipal code. The master plan amendment. All right. The request is for that equestrian center parcel to go from parks, greenways, and open space to single family neighborhood. So prior to 2017, all PUDs were just SPA. There were special plan areas in the master plan. when we did the update to the master plan in 2017, we updated all those SPAS to just generally reflect what the current uses were. So when staff was updating that, they looked at the equestrian center and they said, "Yeah, PGOS sounds correct." I don't know that they necessarily looked into the fact that single family residential was approved on that site and had been since 1995. I think had they looked into that, they probably would have designated it SF. The other thing is that the master plan designation of PGOS requires that the lands be preserved through conservation easements or other mechanisms. This site never went through that because it was always intended that it was someday going to be single family. So right now, let's say that none of this gets approved. The developers are still going to build seven homes on this lot and we're going to have a non-conformance. Essentially, we're going to have a non-conforming use on a site that's has a master plan of PGOS. So, I recommend that either way, this master plan amendment be approved. This is really a cleanup item. This is a correction. So, the result is that the master plan will conform to the approved uses or the approved uses will conform to the master plan, however you want to look at it. Before I get into the analysis and the findings, I just want to cover a couple of things that I saw in public comment in the last couple of days. Um, one was about this 10% contingency of units. So, when this application was originally submitted, it was not for a reduction in the number of units. I asked for that in the first review. I asked for them to look at it, look at the buildout, and come back to me with realistic numbers. And that's exactly what the applicants did. They came back and they said, "This is how many units we can feasibly put on the remaining undeveloped parcels, and we would like a 10% contingency in case any of that changes. Now, that 10%, the 469 includes that 10% contingency." And I just want to let everybody here know that that 10% contingency on the number of units is completely normal in a PUD. I I would be surprised if we ever saw a PUD that did not have that 10% contingency. All of the ones I've worked on have had it. So it's not abnormal to have that. And still with the HOA resident control at the 75% which I think hits at 351. So even if the applicants reduced it down to 400 or took away whatever that 10% contingency is, it's not going to affect the HOA control, which is the real reason we're trying to get an actual number of units here. So that's the 10% contingency. Couple of the other things that I've read is um requesting that the planning commission and that the council review the allowance in village 7 that should the sales pavilion be demolished that no home should be able to be built there or that the sales pavilion should be preserved. There is no mechanism in the handbook for that right now. Um, the sales pavilion is part of village 7 and if it were ever removed, they would be able to build, I think, five homes on that site. That's not anything that's changing in this update. Um, so I I realize that they're asking for that, but it's not anything that's been addressed in this amendment. Additionally, back in 2019, eight units were approved on the front lawn of the mansion. And I I also read that people didn't want that those eight units built there. And while I understand it was approved in 2019, so it's tenative map for those units has already been approved. Then they they had four years to develop. They were running out of time. They came back in 2023 and 20 2023 and requested the two-year extension, which they're allowed to do. And they came before the planning commission, and the planning commission approved the 2-year extension. So, they now have until November 16th, I think, of 2025 to do the final map and record the final map for that. So, eight units, eight units. So that's that's that's where we're at with that. So I just want to address those things because I feel like they're going to come up in public comment, but I want you guys to know where staff stands on those. Moving back into the presentation. Um the planned unit development review recommended findings are on the board. Staff does find that the amendment is consistent with the modified objectives. Um the reduced number of units will give residents control of the HOA board. There's no change in the ratio of residential to non-residential because those areas the the the acres of those areas are not being changed. Um there's no change in the open space. There's no change in the public services or vehicular or any of that. Um the proposed density of the 4.5 seems appropriate, especially with that 2acre buffer to the south. Uh does it address a unique situation? Yes, the amendment addresses the changes over the past seven years. Is it compatible with the master plan? Yes, it's going to bring the site into conformance with the master plan. And again, for the public benefit, I believe that it's benefiting the residents by giving them control of that board. So, master plan amendments um substantial conformance with the master plan priorities and and policies. Yes. Um the SF designation brings the site into conformance. If we don't approve that, then it's just not going to be in conformance. Um, are the activities in development compatible with surrounding development? The master plan amendment doesn't change the allowed development. It just brings it into conformance and availability of public services. There's no change. So, staff has been able to make all of the findings. The recommended motion is on the board. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Leah. Um, Andy, would you like to give a presentation? Yes. Thank you. Pardon me. Um, commissioners for the record interviewing with Rogers representing the applicant. Um, a little bit overlap with Leah's um, presentation, but appreciate her thoroughess on this. Um, as we mentioned, yes, this is really specifically this was um, um, this began as an amendment specific to the former equestrian center at Ranchera master plan amendment from PGOS to single family as staff mentioned to clean that up. Um, in my opinion, that was a mistake that was done by the city u back in 2018 with the adoption of reimagine Reno. Uh, and then a PUD amendment um on its surface, right? The main um point of the amendment is to change the equestrian center um use zoning use to single family and establish a new village 8. Uh here's a look at the the master plan designation uh what's proposed to single family. So, it's consistent actually what's to the north as well as to the east of us. I do want to point out, you know, there is still uh PGOS master plan that would remain as part of this. We the the equestrian center expanded outside of what the current parcel is. So, it included uh the ride ofway of Falabella and a portions of uh Evans Creek, which is on the south side of that highlighted parcel, and um the Lake Ditch uh trail, which is on the west side. So, those actually would remain as PGOS because they are PGOS. Um, as staff mentioned, this this PGOS I, you know, as I say is stated, I believe was done in error. Uh, it does not meet the criteria. Uh, it was never intended to be open space or common area amenity within the PUD. When you look in the PUB, uh, it establishes the open space areas as really kind of those those natural features. The pond um, uh, and trail corridors uh, or the pond and Evans Creek as kind of natural features and then a lot of the trail corridors around uh, the ranch. Um the equestrian center was originally intended going back to 2011 before kind of the contemporary PUD. Um was originally intended by John Harry to be kind of like a livestock event center. Um it was meant to be kind of a you know a cutting horse arena with in and and able to host kind of rodeo type events. Um it was then operated as a commercial stable for almost 10 years. Um they tried to the concept originally in in in the PUD in in the 2015 version of the PUD um was that that equestrian center could be kind of an amenity to the residents that live there that they would have the opportunity that hey if if you're you're downsizing to live in this more infilled environment but you still have a horse you could board it there and ride. Um unfortunately that didn't really come to fruition. No residents were actually boarding their horses. It was all outsorted borders. Um so based on that when you look at the criteria which is in uh on the screen here from you know the criteria of in the master plan for PGOS it does not meet that as um staff mentioned as well. Uh also I want to add um one of the conditions of approval from the 2015 which is kind of again that that modern PUB that we've been building off of for the last 10 years. council actually stipulated um that a residential density shall be applied to the equestrian center as well as the event center or the club at ranch air now is the event center. Um this is that condition um from 2015. Um I kind of highlighted you know enlarged it here that in the event that the combined 31 almost 32 acres of equestrian center andor event center are discontinued the aforementioned land use category shall have an underlying allowable residential density of at least one unit per acre. Um and and really the the crux of that came at the the council approval for it. I believe it was actually councilwoman Breus at the time said, "Hey, you know, this is akin to kind of like a golf course and country club. Um if by chance those, you know, don't survive." Um which at the time they were, you know, City of Sparks was dealing with DeAndrea and and and um its um discontinuence. Um and so she said, you know, it's a good idea to have at least some underlying baseline that we could start from. So that's what we are we're doing. Uh zone PUB, this is kind of the the you know, evolution. Uh this is the the third amendment um which was proposed in 2014, adopted in 2015. Uh the equestrian center was actually quite a bit larger, included the the building which is on the northern parcel there. Uh and then kind of riding arenas and things like that on the south side of Evans Creek. Um they at that kind of in between there um found that they could you know to the west of us is uh Bartley Ranch. Bartley Ranch has a number of equestrian facilities already and and equestrian riding trails. So the developer took a lot of the excess fencing uh and footing of the arenas that were at Ranchera and constructed new arenas at Bartley Ranch as a as a broader public amenity. Built a bridge across um it's which is the white kind of double arrowed line there. built a bridge across Lake Ditch so that folks that were boarding their horses in there still had an opportunity to go ride trails, go ride in the arenas, do that type of thing. And when they discontinued that use, um, uh, uh, tenative map and and ultimately final map was approved for that nine acres on the southside for the nine lots which are now identified and was updated in the 2018 amendment to recognize the estates lots there. Now we're at the fifth amendment. Um, the uh, equestrian use didn't survive. It was not a viable use. Um the as as staff mentioned the the u commercial activities there stopped in I believe 2023. In 2024 they disassembled um the the building itself and and now it sits vacant and we're asking to um reddes designate that as single family um zoning within the ranch era PUD. Uh when you look at that kind of in the broader context of the PUD, all of that kind of western side, um with the exception of the estates residential down in the in the in the bottom left corner there, all of that is single family. Um in addition, open space, right, the the PGS, it was never identified in the handbook as open space. Open space was I really just these kind of um you know, more natural features um buffers along Delmonte trail corridors. um with this, you know, we did um uh you did some outreach as part of this. Met with a number a couple of the neighbors next door a few times. Um got some input from them. Not saying that they're in favor of it, and I'm sure you'll hear from them tonight. Um but some of the things we heard from them was, you know, kind of a concern of, hey, we don't want homes built right off of our back fence. Um we're concerned about our views, things like that. And so we did, um build in some um further restrictions, um based on that feedback. Um, so we proposed a 50-ft buffer on the north side of village 8 there. Um, there was a trail corridor through there, but it didn't have an identified kind of width to it. So really it was just kind of like a trail with some trees. Um, now it's a it's a broader it's 50T. Um, 50oot is similar to the Evans Creek corridor on the south side that's 55 ft. So we felt like that was um, appropriate. Um, we added a requirement for one tree for every 30 lineal feet. That's actually more than what's required for some of the other open space corridors. For example, the Lake Ditch Trail corridor requires one tree for every 50 ft, for example. Um, and then that all, you know, it already provides a connection to the Lake Ditch Trail. It'll continue that. Um, we restricted it to 29 allowable units and then we further restricted those units to be one story both on the north side again adjacent to that uh open space corridor and on the south side against the Evans Creek. So, trying to listen to what the neighbors are saying and address what we can. One of the other major things that we heard, um, Leah mentioned it and we heard it definitely from the neighbors loud and clear is, um, the the desire to reduce the total number of units allowable within a ranchera. Um, I just want to make a note, you know, the the PUD and the CCNRs, which the CCNRs is what determines um, HOA takeover and and when those thresholds are met, they are two completely different documents, right? the HO or the the PUD is is a is a public land use document um regulated by the city of Reno. The CCNRs at their creation were based on the PUD, but they are a private land use um restriction and covenant between private land owners. That is a completely different thing. and and while um I don't feel and and based on the conversations with the attorneys that developed the CCNRs, us changing uh the number total number of units within the rancher PUD has no bearing on the CCNRs and the total number of units that are within that. Um but as a good faith effort to show that we did go through um what we felt was a a logical um kind of evaluation of of what the total units should be. Uh so starting at the top, the event center which is in purple there, the the mansion. Um it had an underlying density of or allowance for 12 units. Um we're not changing that. It's still proposed at 12 units. As Leah mentioned, eight units are currently approved on the very southern portion u between kind of the pond and the um which is that green blob there. Uh and the main house, there's actually a standalone parcel for it. Um and that tenant map expires in November of this year. The equestrian center had seven. It's going to zero because we're getting rid of the equestrian center designation. Uh the estates residential, there's the nine lots that we created south of Evans Creek and then there was one older home that actually was preserved. Um so that's the 10. Uh I'm going to skip the urban residential for a second. Um the cottages, which are the brown uh areas there originally allowed to have 250. They're mapped and constructed at 178. Um single family u which is all the northwest portion of the ranch um was allowed to have 133 units. We're increasing that to 162. That's the 29 units that we are uh establishing in the new village 8 uh in the former equestrian center site. So that brings us to the urban residential. So what I did is I said, you know, I went through and and and assessed what has been actually final mapped and and constructed in Ranchera. And so you add up, you know, all the single family, um village 4, village six, the cottages, right? Those are all constructed. So nothing's changing there. So I added up all of those. Um I added in the 29 units from village 8 from the new village 8. Then you get to village 7. Village 7 um all but the 1 acre uh parcel where the existing sales center is. Village 7 has an existing approved tenative map for 59 units. So I added that in. However, oh I'm sorry I added those 59 units into my total. Um that density is about five units per acre. So I assigned that same density to the um sales center parcel to get another five units there. 64 in village 7. Added all of that up and it came to 420 some odd. Um added a 10% contingency and that's where we got to the 469. The reason that we did it that way, we're restricting ourselves to 29 units on village 8. Village 7 currently has the ability to develop at 310 units. Okay. Yes, it has an approved tenative map, but I've been around long enough and gone through major recessions when things, you know, um the you know what hits the fan and things can change drastically. So, until that final map is recorded and until that starts construction, I don't feel comfortable uh as a planner trying to anticipate future uh outcomes here to fully reduce that down to um you know, only the 59. So that's where that contingency comes into play which I feel is a very appropriate um planning mechanism. Uh and staff I think in her in Leah's presentation agreed with that. Um so just some of the responses to some of the resident comments. There was some emails that were sent around Ranchera um to the to the to the um Oops, I broke my um and just with respect to the sales pavilion, it's always been part of the urban res urban res urban residential zoning area. Um there's no plans to demolish it, but I feel it's very prudent to allocate at least some underlying density similar to what exists at the club right now. Okay. um the club condos which is uh the 12 units that are allowed within the event center or the club that's been associated those 12 units have been associated with the PUD since um kind of the modern one that we've been working on since 2014. U and like I mentioned there's an existing tenative map that expires in November. No final map has been filed with the city to date for that. um contingency plans. Like I said, the PUB is a zoning document and until such time as villages are final mapped and built, there is a need for contingencies that are dependent on market conditions. That is good planning outreach to neighbors uh to adjacent neighbors. We were accused that we had kind of you know stated that hey we had had some meetings with the the nearest adjoining neighbors um and that we had their support. No um not necessarily but we did solicit their input and we have incorporated what we feel is appropriate into the PUB. um the future plans for Village 8. Um there when we met with some of those adjacent neighbors, we did share with them a conceptual plan. We had an architect um prepare something that we felt was viable. Um however, there's no builder that's picked that up. That's the master developer. They're not a home builder. Um there's no home builder that has picked up um and and made an offer on this property, but we trying to you know, it's it's hard for lay people to just um you know, think of what could be. So, we had a a pretty picture of what it could be. It's a conceptual plan, but it in in no way, you know, is the final plan that may or may not come forward for village 8. And just wanted to to clarify that. And so with that, I can't advance the slide because I dropped this. Uh that I believe concludes my presentation. Can you advance one more? There's right. Oh, thank you. Can you advance one more slide just to make sure I don't ah that that is it. So with that, um I would reserve the rest of my time to u address any public comment and I'm happy to answer any questions. questions. All right, we'll go to disclosure starting with Commissioner Bisera. Uh, hello. Uh, met with the applicant. Oh, Commissioner Ber for the record. I met with the applicant's representative. I met with the residents at Ranchera and took a tour and I reviewed provided material and public comment. Commissioner Delr, I met with the um developers and I read all of the communications that have come my way so far. Commissioner Roar Meer read received emails, met with the applicants, met with the uh residents who gave us a tour. Commissioner Williams, I read the documentation provided to us in comments and uh met with the applicant. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I sought guidance from the city attorney's office and I met with the applicants team and uh, read emails in opposition to the project. Commissioner Belto. Yes, Commissioner Belto, I met with the applicant's representatives and I received and reviewed correspondence uh, at my city email. Okay, now we'll go to public comment. Um, I've received uh a number of public comment here in the chambers, but uh we also have some online. Correct. I don't have anyone with their hand raised at this time. Um, if you're hoping to speak under public comment for this item, please raise your hand. Okay. I will um I'm going to put out a couple of names and we'll do them in order. Starting with David Wong, then Christine Christine Speed, then Glenn Gray, then we'll go into the next batch. Hello, my name is David Wong. Um, I am a homeowner and resident of Ranchara. Um, I oppose all of the amendments that they've been put through, but um, what I'd like to focus on this presentation to you, which has not been really addressed in Mr. During the, um, the staff is regarding open space. Um, the open space that was granted, as I understand it, back in 2018 in the PUD handbook was 10.8 acres. Of course, back then the whole development hadn't really basically been done. Now, today 2025, um we have this situation whereby the village is almost completed. Um when when you look at this map here, you will see that what has been designated as open space is all in green. Now um Christine Speed kindly went around and measured okay she's not a quantity surveyor and obviously these are estimates but basically we came up with the fact that all this open space only comes up to about 6.8 acres. Now originally 10.8 as I understood it and I could be wrong here included the pond which is here. It included village 8 which was the equestion center. It included the lawn that was invent center. Now that's gone. That belongs to Ranchara the club. The HOA still has the pond that is going to be developed 7.2. So we we will get 1.2 back. But this designated open space here is really a public pathway. Could you argue the fact that basically that is not open space for the benefit of the rental residents? Well, it is, but it's also to public. The other problem basically also is that this open space here which is basically the BMS although it's under the maintenance and the and the of the HOA really kind of belongs to this here and this open space really belongs to the club. So if you took those two things of consideration and took them out of the open space, the only open space that's really relevant is all of this. Plus, the map hasn't really been updated, but the open space also should include a small reflection pond over here and a dog park over here. Okay. And and so therefore, we're short about 4 acres of open space. And what Christine's going to present in the next three minutes is um the possibility of mitigating this by um doing some things which to amend the PUD handbook to reflect the open space that's required. Um one of the things which um um is really needs to be amended I I believe is this space here because this really doesn't belong to the HOA. it belongs to the owners of this and the owners of this. Okay. And from that I'm going to hand over to Christine to talk about what she feels mitigating things should be for the people. Thank you. Hello Christine Speed. Hi to all the commissioners. Um we are hoping that um since we are we feel that we are short four uh acres and we hope we have solutions or requests five requests and we hope that you'll instruct a developer to carry out these modifications on behalf of meeting their responsibility to provide us with 10.8 acres of open space. And the first request is um supported by RMC18.04.104. Create a walking path along the south side of village 4 the villas along Evans Creek. Continue across Falabella Way and continue east to a new gate to be installed that provides connective access into the Lake Ditch path. At the far southwest corner of Village 8, there already exists a little clearing that could be expanded and made into a quarter acre secluded sitting and viewing area at Evans Creek under the trees. Second request supported by RMC18.02.6037. Remove the ratty fence along the north bank of the Evans Creek at the southern border of village 8. restore the river bank on both sides into a repairarian buffer zone to control erosion and support aquatic ecosystems and restore Evans Creek on the east side of Falabella by rem moving the artificial retaining wall and restoring this bank to its pre-development natural riverine slope. Third request supported by RMC18.04.105 105 preserve the mature trees upon the raised burm along the west per uh perimeter of village 8 as well as those along the south perimeter along the creek bank. The western perimeter trees are particularly sensitive because they're growing upon twoft elevation in grade fronted by a stone retaining wall. Fourth request create more pedestrian paths for connect connectivity to offices and shops at village 7. renovate the old road along the eastern perimeter of village 7 and create an emergency road and emergency gate plus a pedestrian gate similar to the one in cano. This would provide connectivity to the east end of Sierra Rose shops and offices. The request restores the exit that originally existed on the city approved village 7 map. We are told that the easement required would be minimal. And the fifth request is uh the pavilion and create a historical and cultural preservation zoning to prevent to protect this site of cultural significance. Reserve it for future community purchase once residents assume control of the HOA and um and that is supported by RMC18.02.602. Thank you very much. Thank you, Glenn. Hi. Uh, Glenn Gray. I'm a resident of, uh Rancher. Um, bought my piece of property there 7 years ago in 2018. Um, I think I've sent you all a little note. I hope you had a chance to read it. Um, and I hope you had a chance to verify some of the things that I said in my note by Mr. Derling's uh presentation. My concern is about motivation. So you have to sit there and wonder they have the ability to build seven homes there. What's the motivation to change it to 29? Why? I'll tell you the motivation. The developer said he can sell it faster and get more money. That is the motivation. These are direct words that were told to me in four meetings that I had with the developer. Okay. So, what does that mean? That means Locust Development will sacrifice the good of the entire community for a little expediency in selling the land and for some potential profit that they can make. Complete disregard to whether those 29 homes fit the land use all around it. The presentation from staff talked about uh zoning uh working the the amount of of homes in the land next to it and everything working. Nothing about fairness, nothing about value, nothing about when we bought our homes, what we relied on when we bought our homes. We relied on the PUD that you people helped make. And it says seven homes. Why would we change it? Why Why are we even talking about this? This should just be rejected. We all made decisions, hundreds of us, based on the PUD that you helped us. You gave it to us. We relied on it. We made investments, life-changing investments for many of these people, built their homes knowing if the equestrian center were to go down, seven homes would be behind it, not 29 smaller, much less expensive homes to devalue our property. The motivation is greed. Why would the developer add a 10% contingency on the number of homes being built in Rancher when 300 homes are already built? You don't need 10%, maybe 10% on what's not built. The 300 homes are already there. Why would you have a contingent on something that's already done? You know what the motivation is? Greed. I have a lot more to say and I'm running out of time so I'm not being going to be able to say it but I will say end with one little comment. I'd like to make a comment to the CEO of Locust Development, Mr. Gordon Greco. Excuse me, I mean Mr. Joel Grace. Greed is not good. Your greed is especially not good for Ranchera. Save Rancher. Stop the greed. Thank you. Next we'll have Warner Keller, Audrey Keller, and Kyle Horset. Thank you and good evening. Let me get my map out. It's the same map that you've seen before. My topic is a narrow one. I'm surprised that Miss Picotti did not mention the need for an updated uh traffic study at Ranchera. drafts the traffic study that's in the current version of the PUD handbook comes from 2018 and that was really a refresh of the original one done in 2015. Well, we all know there was nothing in Ranchera. There was no traffic in Ranchera to measure in 2015. So the way that they do it, the traffic engineer common practice is to uh uh do a projection, pull the manual off the shelf, which they disclose in their cover letter and uh estimate what the traffic flow should be and nothing has been updated since then. So that this is we're all relying on on that uh study. Now we have lots of traffic. We have lots of stuff that we could be be measuring including the adequacy of the so-called backbone roads right through here which you all know goes from Talbot to uh Dukitsky and and the adequacy of the various feeder roads into the various communities. Those of us who live here believe that uh that uh that the traffic infrastructure is inadequate with the current level of of dwellings. The uh 2015 study also mentioned that there was a potentially huge problem that was with no development at all right here at uh the exit on u on Kitsky which is the right turn going down to the I'm sorry I'm over here. This this is where the exit is down and here's the circle at Neil Road. uh that traffic study 10 years ago said this is a potentially huge problem and and uh because it's it's controlled by a stop sign and uh nothing has changed. So uh that that's that's a big concern. But my biggest concern, the only reason I want to get your attention is this entrance up here. This this is a it's a it's it's labeled planned access by Wood Rogers and it was presented and and we spoke in favor of it aggressively. Thank you. Thank you, Audrey. [Applause] Thank you, planning commissioners. I know it's late. like to show you a picture of village 7, the sales pavilion. For those of you that are new, uh I was here before and before and before and I'm also the one that appealed the prior um uh amendment to the prior amendment of the prior amendment and I appealed it on village 7. Uh, Village 7 was set for 59 homes and that got appealed and when it went to city council, just so you know because you're new today, welcome. That the um city council voted to amend what was to say it should not village 7 shall not exceed 59 homes. Period. So, here we are with the developer coming before you and saying, uh, we're going to change that. We're going to add an overlay. We're going to go to 107 homes. Now, I'm on the NAB board for Wo. The first time they showed this to the NAV, there was no amendment to any counts whatsoever. The second time they showed this publicly was on February 27th. No count either. No count or amendment or discussion about a contingency plan. So now they're showing you and for the first time us that they want to take 59 in village 7 and change it to 107. I object to that. Why? Because 59 the map that Mr. um Andy would not show show you at all was single family homes. 107 homes is something altogether different. It's much more compact. It's probably multi-story and attached homes. to get 107 in that acreage. So, they're changing the total everything that came before planning commission, changing it. Now, again, that went to city council. It was appealed and city council appelled it. So, I have a problem with that and maybe you should too. Separately, this little carveout where this beautiful sales pavilion is is an original ranch building. It was built by the Hera family to portray the art and as a community center. It's zoned in the PUB as a potential community center. The HOA members want that as a community center. So, the last time we went for the appeal, we were promised the developer couldn't wipe it out because they hadn't dealt with the parking that got left in this little tiny 1acre parcel. So, now what happens? Now they're telling us they're going to demolish it anyway regardless that they know. We met with them today. We asked them, you save that P pavilion and you sell it to the HOA. Are they? No. They are going to build five homes on it. They're going to demolish it. I'm asking you for intervention and for just some calm thinking about what's happening inside this community with all those amendments. It's just not right. And I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Um actually Kyle's uh request not to speak but in opposition and it says the comment is public notice excluded pertinent staff report details regarding village 8 and the increase in lots from 7 to 29. Um so Mike Melo and then Amy Horvath. Hey folks, it's me again. So, I heard a lot of I heard a lot of stuff here tonight. A bunch of whatifs and and I heard this and so on and so forth. Um I I totally agree with this gentleman. Everything that he said, it's like we were separated at birth or something. I mean, everything he said was stuff that I was thinking I had written down that I didn't get to. When I went to the um went to the meeting uh the uh the town hall meeting with uh with Andy, there was a different there was a different map. So the map for lot 8 uh shows nothing. The one that was shown up here tonight, the one that I saw had seven lots on it. So I don't know what happened to that to that map. Um, but there's actually I have I have the email from the CEO of Ranchera um that I can show you and it's not 7.2 acres, it's not 7 acres, it's 6.75 acres. So to go from seven lots to 29 right in the middle of these beautiful multi-million dollar homes and um u and expect the property values of those homes to not be affected is just not is just not right. It's a it's a matter of fairness. Uh, in the town hall meeting, I was told that it would be easier to attract a builder for 29 lots than it would be for seven. They were tired of Ranchera. They want it out. This is the last piece in the puzzle. And as soon as they get that done, figured out, uh, sold off, they can move on. And um that's the motivation. Motivation is uh is is is greed. The 29 lot thing. They don't think the seven lots will sell. Well, the big lots in there are sewn like hot cakes. The houses being built uh uh the the the the lots on the north side of of lot 8 are just about gone. The big lots on the south side are getting gobbled up and houses are being built. These lot, these seven lots will get sold. There'll be beautiful homes in there. Homes that people can be proud of and homes that the people that live in Ranchera can be proud of. I don't live in the customs. I live in the track houses. But I see that I see what can happen here. I I see that this is this is not fair. It's wrong. And let us worry about our HOA. We we we'll take care of that. Okay. We don't need your help. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Amy. that show up. Okay. I hate public speaking. I'm Amy Horvath. Hello. Spoken with a lot of you. Hello, Mike. Nice to see you in person. Um, I have a lot to get through and I'm going to do my best to get this in three minutes, but I hope you'll all lot me a little bit more time if necessary. I won't bore you with my personal story of why my family and I moved from a different state to come to Ranchera that neighborhood. Um, you received my email and hopefully you at least had time to read the letter. Uh, sorry it was very lengthy, but there's a lot of information that this development's been going on for a while. So um these are resident proposed solutions. The goal of this is to reach solutions between the residents and the applicant. The developers want 29 lots. They want out of ranchera. That's what we've been told over and over and over again. They've said that they want to have the HOA take over the sales pavilion and the clubhouse. So these are resident proposed solutions that get us all there. Um the residents would like to enjoy what we were told and sold on. Um these conditions were presented and discussed today with Andy Derling and Joel Grace. Um we received resounding nos on all four topics. Two perhaps may on very small parts and one commitment on something that is incredibly helpful that we really do hope they will follow through on um but it wasn't something that we actually asked for. So that's where we are. Overwhelmingly, we were told that the applicant will not change anything without knowing the final outcome and the final state of Rancherero of what Rancherero will look like. That to me sounds like the end of a development, but that's just me. Okay, so four conditions. Here's the first condition. I'm going to sum this up because this isn't accurate um from what we've learned. The goal really is just in PGOS, a true separate, continuous, accessible, usable parcel for all Rancher residents to use. That is only for our residents. Not counting the corridor that the whole public has access to between Wheatland Park, Bartley Ranch, and our neighborhood. Not including this strip of land that nobody can actually access and enjoy. Um, we appreciate those things. We appreciate the trees, but an actual community space. We have current our current open space are trails. It's not a community gathering space. Um, we've been told that the lake ditch Oh gosh. Okay. Uh, applicant says no. Uh, nothing is offered by the applicant outside of the 50oot trail corridor, which part of that was is already there. They're adding a few feet. Um the club we were told is a private recreational amenity for our neighborhood. We would like to protect it. Applicant says no. Um they have con concession was possibly maybe the applicant will speak to the developer of village 7 regarding that developer's desire to build a park open space a top the retention storm basin. Can I keep going? Few more seconds. Okay, condition two is to preserve the original ranch buildings. There's a lot built into this. Um, we were told a resounding no. The only concession would be maybe uh giving us more than 5 days through the HOA as a first right of refusal. That's what we have, 5 days first right of refusal. Um, and maybe possibly no firm commitment adding in a first right of offer. Um, we're asking for provisions to protect the sales pavilion and the clubhouse to just simply change some of the permitted uses in the PUD. We're not asking for new uses. So, we'll just give you another 15 seconds. I'm just going to flip through so that you all can see um the other conditions. So, um this condition is asking for this has been brought up this planned access. We were told no. We asked about emergency access. We were told no. The applicant did say yes to gathering information if you want to ask questions about that later. Last condition was asking for the 59 units to be upheld. We were told no. The final map is likely 1 to two months away. We requested that this meeting be postponed until that final map was approved. We were told no. uh the developer of that village wants 107 units so that if these 59 don't work for what economic reasons, market changes, etc. Um they have that option. Applicant says there's absolutely nothing they can do about this. Resident suggested asking for the continuence postponement. We were told no. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Did do we have public comment online as well? I don't have any. Okay. Looks like we have a couple people with their hand raised. Um, George, we're going to start with you. Um, when you're ready, unmute yourself. Um, and then state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Okay, great. Uh, good evening everyone. My name is George Fipitus. I live in the Ranchera community. I've been here 3 years. I purchased in the Canaro Village 6. Uh, but my fiance and I obviously know our neighbors and we walk the community and we are very concerned about the future of Ranch Hera. It's a very historic and nostalgic site. Uh should be very very important to the city of Reno to maintain not only the club but all the surrounding areas including the sales pavilion. It's uh you know it's great to be able to talk to the builders face to face in the town halls but we keep getting caught off guard with these changes at the last minute and it's concerning uh all of us and I'm in full support of everything that my neighbors have stated here tonight. So, I'm just hoping that uh the commission can really take all this into serious account, maybe pause and and think about the impact to this area that you know once it's changed, it won't ever change back. Um as far as village 8, um I think it should remain as it is, seven homes. I don't think another 22 homes is going to have a major impact in the housing availability in Reno. uh but it will have a huge impact on us and the neighbors surrounding that lot. Um, similarly with the sales pavilion, uh, we were told that that property is for sale and that it would not be able to be financed without five homes being zoned on that property, which I don't understand and I'm not sure I quite believe, but that building in itself is another historic element of this neighborhood. And we slowly see these things slipping away. So, I'm just uh hoping the commission can consider all our arguments in uh declining the request from the applicant. Thank you. Thank you. We have Terry online. Terry, when you're ready, you can unmute yourself. Um state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Hi, my name is Terry Yakonus. I live in Rancher at 6135 Balabella. My husband and I worked with an architect to design a house we wanted to build and we shoed for land to build it on. We thought we died and went to heaven when we found Ranchera. The lots were twice as expensive as others we had been considering, but it was very unique property and history and it had two amenities we tremendously valued. We had a plan pool for my husband to swim and a stable where I could stable a horse I wanted to purchase. I have several friends who own horses which they stable miles and miles away from where they live. As such, they don't go there very often. How fantastic it would be to walk a horse to a stable there. And unlike St. James Village where we lived for 18 years. We didn't have to live on the promise of a developer who was going to build a club, a golf course, and stables, which of course were never built. The equestrian center was already there. We bought a custom lot in Lariat and began building. We traveled to northern Idaho to meet a horse breeder I had identified for horse purchase. We could not believe it when the developer tore down the equestrian center. From the beginning, the equestrian center was heavily marketed as what made Ranchera a ranch? And this amenity was what made our financial investment in this community make sense. Was the developer offering anything to the community as a replacement for that amenity? The answer is obviously no. I support the developer's right to develop remaining parcels in ranch era, but I don't believe it's good development to build 29 homes on small lots with shared driveways in the middle of a custom parcels and especially which backs up to the estates of rancher which were the most expensive lots here. I believe it makes sense the most sense that it becomes a contiguous plan of custom homes. Lariat, Rihanna, whatever you want to call this new development area and the estates or just make it a further extension of the estates. The developer knew zoning was one home per acre and they want to develop something less than seven custom homes. Create some other amenity for all the rancher residents benefit. That would be great. How about a dog park since so many residents have dogs and that would provide a certain amount of open space which were missing that was supposed to be a part of PGOS zoning. The other item I want to raise is traffic issue getting in and out of rancher. I know there was a traffic study done in 2018 but that was a projection. Now we have reality before any more development is approved for ranchera. I believe the planning commission should require a new study that takes in account the ingress and egress issues that residents must live with every day and were not even built out. In a previous amendment, traffic issue was raised and a potential of an exit entrance east of the 59 patio home. We're over time. If you could wrap up, I think that should be re-examined for the resident's benefit and safety. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. We don't have any other participants online with their hand raised at this time. If you'd like to speak and you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. No one has raised their hand. All right, we're going to close public comment and go to questions from the commissioners for staff and the applicant. Uh, Commissioner Williams, for the record, can is there a way to get this document that council supposedly signed limiting that to 59 homes? Hello, Leah Picotti for the record. Thank you for your question. Um, that that's absolutely true. The council did limit it. This was back just not that long ago. Some of you who are on this commission remember village 7 came before us. It had 59 units. It was an application for a tenative map. So tenative map went forward was appealed um and council said no more than 59 homes can be built here because they were concerned that there was a contingency that would allow 10%. So um because that was a tenative map and not an amendment to this handbook that can still be modified because that tenative map can be scrapped and a new tenative map could come forward. The condition by the council was specific to that tenative map. Just a followup, Commissioner Williams, uh, again, is it safe to say that the intent of the council in that decision, whether or not it was an amended map or not, was to limit the homes to 59? I think the intent of the council was to limit that tenative map to 59 homes. Okay. Thank you so much. Just to follow up on that, that condition was project specific. It was specific to that tenative map. Mike, can you elaborate on that for the new Sorry. As as Leah mentioned, the the council reviewed that tenative map under appeal and that was a condition placed on that tenative map that it not exceeded 59 units. As Lee said, if that tenant map scrapped or that developer decided not to move forward with recording a final map, a new project would could come in would not be subject to that 59 unit cap that was placed because it was specific to that project. Okay. And just to follow up, Commissioner Williams, again, um where are we at with that tenative map? And the tenant map has been approved. I would have to ask Mr. Derling if if they're moving forward final map. I actually know um it's in review with us right now. The final map has been in and um I think somebody stated should be approved in the next couple of months. Spot correct. What the 59 units? Thank you for that. Uh hi Commissioner Delvr. I had a couple of sort of clarifying questions because I think there seems to be a lot of things going on and I just want to make sure I'm understanding. Um, so this is specifically for village 8, this conversation we're having and the changes. Is that correct? This conversation is an amendment to the handbook. So you're going to look at this as an amendment to the overall zoning in Rancher. Okay. The master plan amendment is specific to that 6acre equestrian center village 8 site. I got it. Okay. Thank you. Because I was getting a little confused. And then there's obviously the CCRs and the HOA. So, um I just want to make sure I'm which are not under our purview. Totally understood. Um I have kind of an maybe an odd question. Um you know the the rodeo the Reno rodeo arena. What is that? Do you know what that is designated by any chance? I do not know what that's designated as. But I can tell you I will give me a minute. I look I'll come back. I'm just curious, you know, because obviously this was designated as public space, whether that was whether that made sense or not. I'm just kind of curious what the what the uh So, in my research, I did go to see if I could find any other stables in the city of Reno with a PGOS designation, and I did not find not one. I just literally did a Google search for stables, looked at their addresses, there were none of them in PGOS. Got it. Thank you. And then uh I'll one more quick question then I'll yield for for now. Um and it does have to do with with the traffic. So, I, you know, I've been in there. Um, and again, I don't know if the traffic study was done with 722 homes in mind or or what, but it just seems to me that, you know, whether whether a new traffic study needs to be done or whether that's been considered or whether there's sort of like what's the escape contingency, that kind of thing. And just kind of try to wrap my head around that. We definitely looked at this in this application and um as you stated that traffic study from 2018 had 722 homes, but I think what's going to happen and this is as a city planner what I would normally do is I would look at that when a development comes forward um not necessarily when the zoning document comes forward. If something was changing, the roadways were changing, the access was changing, something like that, we would definitely require that traffic study for this. But because this is only development related, we'll revisit it when the development comes through. Okay. So, sorry, just a little bit of clarification. So when if it goes to 29 homes then that would is when the so if the 29 homes is approved and the applicant comes forward with a tenative map for those 29 homes that will come back before this body and we would look at the traffic for those 29 homes and Ranchera as a whole at that time. Got it. Thank you so much. I have a question regarding the open space calculation and amending the handbook. Um, there was the original mention of about 10 and 1/2 acres of open space. Questionably, maybe that open space is sort of sidewalkish uh with a little parkway strip and then now it's down a few acres from that. Now, how come that isn't being revised in the handbook? And what is the actual open space calculation? Um, I'll defer to Andy on the open space calculation, but I do want to um let everybody know that per Reno municipal code that open space, sidewalks and things like that count as open space. I mean, you can count a lot of things. The lake can count as open space. Um, there's a difference between open space and usable open space. And I I do understand what what the residents are saying about usable open space. Um, but as far as staff is concerned, the definition of open space is being met. And I'll let Andy talk about the amount. Before Andy starts, just to get back to you, I confirm my suspicions. The livestock event center is owned public facility, but it's also owned by the state of Nevada. Go to a bigger one. Um, Andy Derling for the rest for the record. Um, Commissioner Roire to address your comment. So this uh exhibit is in the handbook as the open space exhibit. So everything you see in kind of the green clouded area uh is what adds up to the total um I think in the in the land use table it's actually 13 point something it's 13 acres and change. Uh arguably that is actually increased. Uh we didn't we didn't actually increase it in the in the handbook but that northern corridor of village 8 essentially was a small strip previously. Now it's a 50ft wide corridor. Uh I think what the residents are calculating it what I heard is they're discounting the Lake Ditch Trail because that is a public trail. Yes, it is a public trail. That was a condition of approval by the uh city council. Um but that still is, you know, within the boundaries of Rancher. It's maintained by Ranchera. Um and yeah, it's public, but it's also open to them as well. Um the reason that you know Rancher doesn't have like a formal park um a couple reasons for that. First of all if you look just to the west of us you have Wheatland Park which is an existing city of Reno Park. You have Bartley Ranch which is existing Wo County regional park. Um so looking at it from a park coverage park proximity um you know the factors that would go into kind of park planning it it didn't warrant an additional you know neighborhood community park in Ranchera. Um the concept of the event center as now the club at Ranchera is essentially it's it's a country club without a golf course, right? And so there are a lot of master plan communities like this that would have a clubhouse facility like that um that is part of their recreational amenity package um for their usage. So that's sort of the rationale that had been um conceived for rancher overtime. I think Commissioner Jockman. Um, so there there have been a lot of allegations and some emotion and some of the comments from public uh from the public. So I'd like to direct my questions at the staff. Um, obviously we're talking about overall density within Rancher's PUD. Um the initial as a part of my research for this, I took a look at some of the conditions of approval that city count council stated in the initial PUD which would have been the document that was obviously before any uh person who made a land acquisition as a part of Ranchera. Um I'll read the condition. So in the event that the combined uh 30 1.9 acre equestrian center andor event center are discontinued, the affformentioned land use category should have an underlying allowable residential density of one dwelling unit per acre. Um it goes on to talk about 722 units. Obviously, that condition of approval was uh which was voted unanimously by city council in 2015 uh was implying future development of the equestrian center and or the event center. Um so, and maybe this is a tough question. I I don't I don't know, but how did that get zoned as open space? um given that city council clearly was positioning for uh residential development of those parcels. Um thank you for the question, Commissioner Leah Picotti. For the record, I I did a lot of research into it and I don't have a definitive answer. Um I can tell you that when they when the master plan was created, they looked at the existing uses on the property. They didn't necessarily look into what could have been used. And I think that that pertained to a lot of Reno and how it was master planned. Um it was about the existing use. They didn't say, "Oh, okay. Well, this is zoned this, so it could be any of these things." I I I don't have a definitive answer, but maybe Mike does. Just to piggyback on that, I was not with the city of Reno in 2018 when the bash was adopted, but I will tell you that it's not uncommon that we find some of these, for lack of a better term, glitches that occurred when when the new land use was applied, especially within PUDS, which had a blanket designation of special planning area. So essentially the the maps from the PD were looked at and that land use was applied potentially without reading through the entire PUD to see oh yeah the questioning center is a recreational amenity. However, there was underlying density assigned to it. So that level of detail may have been missed. Thank you. So then the this follow-up question I have which is regarded in regards to density. So obviously the POD uh initially saw it and I reviewed a traffic study that looked at 722 total residential units in addition to other obviously mixeduse development as a part of the PUD. Um the uh the applicant had a slide that specified 469 units. Um now obviously that's what the applicant told us but um I want to hear it from you without any further discretionary approval. What is the maximum number of units that the uh that the PUB could have that the developer could pursue without discretionary approval? Is it 469? Yeah, we staff would concur with the applicant's um analysis of that. So, so I think what we're weighing here is that there's an increase in density for village 8 of um up it's it's it's uh 15 or so beyond the um initial city council one on the backdrop of dropping 250 units roughly from 722 to 469 um across the PUD. Yes. So, it's a substantial decrease in density across the PUD. um since since those initial documents were uh approved. Yes. It's essentially a decrease in the total number of units and a reallocation of those allowed units within the single family designation over to the village aid site. Okay. Thank you. Oh, Commissioner Bera for the record. Uh hey Leah, can you just level set with us? Um, I think I got a good sense of what's going on here with as far as the ask, but could you enu enumerate the like the kiosk or the amendments before us tonight just cuz it's late. We're almost into Thursday morning. Yeah. And all that. So, the real key asks here are the master plan amendment. So, that's number one from PGOS to SF. the the amendments to the handbook are the remi removing every piece of anything related to writing facilities or equestrian. So that's removed from the objectives and then it's moved removed throughout the PUB. That's one um or two. And then um the amendment to the actual land use area, what we see on this right here, because we're obviously changing it from equestrian center to a village 8 and then bringing it into conformance with current RMC with those flexibility standards on the correct zoning. Okay. And and does a 10% contingency fall into that those 1 2 3 4? It's included in the 469 units. So, it's not it's not 469 and then a 10% contingency. It's 420 or something like that. And that 10% adds in for a total of 469. Great. Thank you. I've been trying to take it all in and I'm just wondering if it might be one for you, Andy, if the applicant or rancher holdings might be amendable to what I heard. Extending some PGOS as a resident asked for for the keyword usable open space is is what I heard. I guess access to sier rose from village 7, removing a white fence that's seemingly held by my old sho strings. Uh preserving the mature trees along village 8. Preserving original ranch buildings and it sounds like they would be amendable to proposed 29 units in village 8 if they can get some of these things or Okay. Okay. But Nick's the last comment but for you know just everyone's awake still. Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, for the record, Andy Derling. So, there there was a number of things there, so forgive me if I need you to to rehash some of those, but, um, uh, looking at, um, let's start with access to Sierra Rose. Uh, that was that was one that was per proposed there, uh, in village 7. Um, yes, we did have a quote unquote planned access that was a placeholder for the potential of an access there, uh, if it were 310 condos or there was actually an alternative land plan that was included in the PUD previously that actually had, um, the northeast corner of village 7 in the orange there as office and medical. Um, ranch area being a gated community, you want to uh, isolate, you know, uh, access into the residential areas. So if that you know went to office medical we would have tried to pursue some access to sir rose uh that was a potent that was kind of the idea back you know when that that arrow was put on there fast forward you know there wasn't a desire to to seek that there wasn't a interest from a builder to do any office medical so it was fable to to build it as residential when um the other villages were built village six there um that storm drainage and sewer goes out on the eastern side of village 7 and goes into um uh Sierra Rose. We approached the interesting thing is um Ranchair does not have frontage on the Sierra Rose rightway. Um there is a spite strip. So that kind of triangular shaped uh office building there just kind of to the top right of the se the numeral numer the number seven um has a spite strip. So it goes out to just a few feet wide. Um we went to the property owners across and they were not willing to give access. they were willing to give limited um utility access. So that's another that's kind of a reason we don't have an access easement there. Um there was there I heard some comments about um restoring uh Evans Creek and the fencing and and adding a pathway along there. Um that's not possible. So Evans Creek was defined as kind of 55 ft. That was defined because that was the existing fences, ranch fences that were there. That's the top of the bank. Um that facility Evans Creek is a creek. Um it you know it does flood. Um it also is an irrigation facility. So it is uh it provides from water from the lake ditch. There is a a gate uh uh at the at the junction there where it can be opened and lake ditch water can go down Evans Creek and there are folks to the east of us off of Delmani there um that have water rights on Lake Ditch that they can use that. So Evans Creek is a irrigation facility and as such that's why when you look at the pictures of it, it can't necessarily be reclaimed into some riparian habitat because um the reads that do grow in there are are whacked down uh every fall so that we that the downstream users can maintain their flow of their water rights for their irrigation purposes. So that's you know not really possible. What else am I missing? Uh a white fence. um preserving mature trees in village. So, uh the white fence, I'm not sure exactly where that is. Uh if it's in village 8 or whatever, but um if it's in village 8 and it was, you know, damage as part of that, yes, that would be either, you know, redone or whatever, however village 8 uh develops. Um the trees um how we have approached the trees. So, we did a very extensive trees survey as part of ranch era um uh back in the day, 10 years ago. Um and as we have moved forward with develop so village 5 in particular has a number of mature trees in that when we did the tenative map for village 5 just as an example um we did a tree preservation plan as part of that and presented that to the planning commission. So I would fully anticipate that we would have a tree preservation plan as part of um the village 8 tenative map. Not saying that every tree is going to get preserved right but there are certainly some um that would be appropriate to be preserved. So that would be addressed at the tenative map for village 8. Any more? Oh goodness. Uh I can throw you more if you want, but no. I I think you might have covered them, but maybe we can unpack some of that more with other commissioners, but I I did maybe have one for Leah as a followup uh to to some of this. I think I think what I hear is that folks want like uh usable open space kind of like uh even though there's a um a public park like Bartley and a few others, but I I I think one of the concerns is that uh across the community, you know, Reno is such an a dire situation that it's hard for us to maintain our own parks, right? So my question is uh is Bartley Ranch kept up? Is it, you know, there there are some parks that are not always kept up perhaps? It seems like cuz funding um but is Bartley Ranch like a public park that can be accessed. Uh I don't know with with all services and all that jazz. Bartley Ranch is a Wo County regional park. It is not a city of regional park, but it can be accessed by the public. Oh, no. I know it can be accessed, but I mean like um some parks are not always kept up or maintained. So maybe what's the state of the park? I couldn't tell you the exact state. I will tell you that I personally attended a concert there during Arttown and it's an active park. No, I Okay, just trying to draw a comparable here because it's it's one thing to say there's a park there, but if we also don't own it as a city, is it a reliable resource for neighbors? Wheatland Park is it? I believe is Wheatland Park just which is just to the north of Bartley Ranch. That is a city park and it is a maintained city park. Okay, great. Thank you. Just trying to get some data points here. Um I'll yield for now. I'll ask one more question. So um of of staff again, Leah. So one of the guiding principles that you cite in the staff report is uh regarding connectivity and access. um guiding principle 4.5A. So um obviously on the slide here we have an access way to Bartley Ranch. Um if we were to approve this um does that guarantee that access allowing me to make that finding? Yes. Um thank you commissioner Leah Picotti for the record. Yes, it would be guaranteed it be written into the handbook. It is written into the handbook. Okay. Thank you. I yield. Is the access on Sierra Rose written into the handbook? Um, it was written as God, it's been a while since I reviewed that. It was written as like potential access, but I I mean our understanding we concur with the applicant. Um, it it doesn't front Sierra Rose. So, if you can't get access, you can't get access. Okay. I I guess I have a question for Andy. I fear maybe Wood Rogers regrets taking this project, but I I'm curious if you have the perfect storm here of a lot of changes that were unanticipated throughout this PUD process and a lot of homeowners who have, you know, an ability to organize and and, you know, advocate for themselves. But why so many changes? I feel like this is an inordinate number of changes in a PUD just in the two years that I've been here. I think we're on our third. So maybe you could give me why it's not just the economy. Sure. So there have been this is the fifth amendment total um to the PUD. Uh as staff mentioned the first PUD was it was in the mid '9s, right? Um John Hera uh it was mostly a kind of equestrian um larger lots. never did anything with it, never enacted anything. Uh I was hired actually by John Herren in 2011 uh to come in. Uh and that is I didn't include it. Um the second amendment um the second amendment I identified a large equestrian center which is kind of what you see there in the green. Um and then village 3, village f, actually village three and a lot of village 1 and two. It was a rather large cuz that's where all the you know um cattle pens and everything else were and an event center. Um he wanted to create an event center had a 800 seat amphitheater. It had you know was meant to be like a corporate events and concert like a Bartley Ranch. Uh and then we created the office medical that you see the retail commercial and then the aforementioned office uh medical near CROS. then um never did any sold off the the the commercial parcels on Kitsky. Uh never really did anything with the events or equestrian was doing equestrian events there, cutting horse events, things like that. Then fast forward this the site the whole property sold in 2014. Uh which is this third amendment and that's kind of what you know I would refer to as the modern PUD. Uh we've amend that amended that once um since um and so really the main amendment was um going from you know the equestrian center on the south there to estates residential um I don't recall you know what the other changes were at that time but they were they weren't super substantial and then fast forward to now we're making a change to village 8. So yeah, there's a number of changes that are in here with this with this request. By and large, it is centered on village 8, right? And and taking out the equestrian center use, re-establishing a single family use there. Um, in addition to that, while we're in the handbook, we're cleaning up things because there's old RMC references to the old code, so we're updating them to the new code, things like that. So that's really just, you know, kind of preunctery type changes. Uh and then the the other major change is really in response to the input we've heard from the residents of wanting to reduce the total number of units. So those are kind of those are the changes really of the equestrian center and changing the total number of units to to reduce them through these iterations which you know make sense and you're reducing the number of units based on what like I think fe feasibly fit in some of those places. I I would rephrase it maybe more as it's changing the number of units because it is developed significantly less with the tenative maps that have been approved and final maps that have been recorded and constructed than it really originally was contemplated. Right? I think if you look at the 722 units, you know, village 6, village 4 were intended to be town homes. Village 7 was intended to be, you know, four-story condominiums. Um the single family residential by and large was zoned for 6,000 square foot lots and developed much larger than that. Only the um uh kind of west or eastern portion of village one two there uh was developed as 6,000 foot lots. So really it was a function of the choices that were made in the actual development um that made it you know quite a bit less dense than it could have been. There's still a lot of changes. Have there been concessions during these changes for the residents as they started moving in and seeing these changes? I there clearly they're asking for a number of things. So I mean since we haven't amended it since 2018, right? So really nobody was moving in in 2018. Um maybe the first homes were starting to be built. Um and so no, not a lot of concessions made because we haven't made a lot of changes. I would say one major concession that has been made is the significant reduction of allowable units in village 7. Right? It's it's permitted to have 310 four-story condominiums. Um in this handbook amendment, we're reducing that down to a potential of 107 with the caveat obviously that there's a current approved tenative map there for 59 units. And so by and large, it's anticipated it's going to be even much less than 107 that we um have included in the handbook at this time. And I I would, you know, kind of underscore all of that. I've heard like a lot of comments about traffic and things like that, right? The traffic studies that are included in the PUD are based on 722 units. The infrastructure that was built was based on 722 units. Um 722 units in addition to all the commercial that you see that was included in there. Uh and the north commercial in the red there was included as a mix of retail and office uses. and it has developed significantly less intense because it's got a a congregate care and a memory facility assisted living memory facility on twothirds of it. Um so the traffic generation from that is you know fraction of what was originally anticipated there. So overall traffic generation from Ranchera is significantly less than what was anticipated in the traffic studies and the infrastructure um plans and just so the the final map which is imminent for village 7 is there a developer who's going to break ground? Yes. So it has not closed yet that is pending also. Uh and then the final map is a month or two off. Um and then they would, you know, conceivably break ground immediately on that or soon thereafter. Um so that's kind of, you know, the timing issue of just needing to still build in some contingencies because, you know, again, I've I've been doing this for a while. I saw the, you know, great recessions of, you know, the early 2000s when projects got flipped on their head and um it's not intended, right? But there are certain sometimes unintended um things that that come up and we're trying to just you know provide a zoning document that can anticipate maybe some flexibility in the future if something horrible happens. That's the rationale behind that. Thank you. Great. Commissioner Bera for the record. Um maybe I guess one for Andy. Is there anything preventing residents from getting control of the HOA once the 300 and some change units sold is reached? And I'm only asking because I guess there's an idea or thought um that there might be open litigation that would still prevent the handing over to residents. You know, if that's the case, I'm not like incredibly aware. I believe there is some open litigation. Um, and again, right, it's it's an HOA CCNR issue, which is not the purview of the city. We're making some good faith efforts in the PUD, but ultimately the CCNRs are governing that litigation. Now, Commissioner Bera, I I would I would like to reiterate that the city is not party to does not enforce has no bearing whatsoever on the homeowners association. Okay. Or CCNRs. That's fine. Thank you. And just trying to find some clarity here around Yeah. How we can move forward. And I do appreciate you, Andy. You're always working in good good faith here. Um, could we uh Commissioner Velto, did you have some questions? Uh, no questions. I'm ready to participate in discussion whenever you want to move into that. Okay. There's a few more questions from the commission. Sure. Uh this is Chris Commissioner Delvr and Andy. I have some questions for you. Getting a little sleepy and y giddy over here. Um so I guess one question I have is did you consider or would you consider building fewer homes in that site and making some of that space open space? So we are making summit an open space right it's and again right the the it's not parks greenways and open space it is not zone that it has a master plan designation as staff has said that was believed on an error yeah um so how we got to the 29 units I think that's a fair I didn't cover that in my presentation so I appreciate you bringing it up so how I got there right I'm trying to I'm trying to give you kind of inside the brain of Indie Durling on this um because we tried to come at this from a very logical um reasonable standpoint. Village 8, we're proposing it as single family zoning within the Ranchera PUB. Okay. In the single family zoning district, the minimum lot size by and large is 6,000 ft. That's five, six units per acre, somewhere in that range. Um there is one village, village one, up in the very northwest corner that has a minimum lot size of 9,000 ft. The reason it has 9,000 square feet is because that was a concession back in 2014 in order to address concerns from the adjacent uh Lewis Lakeside homeowners. So, what I did is I said, "Okay, well, I recognize that there's some lower densities that have been built around it. Mind you, to the east of us, Village 4 is built at about 12 unit per acre, three-story condos." Okay. So, in the context, you kind of have to take that into context as well. So, I asked myself, what is reasonable within the single family zoning district? 9,000 ft² is the largest um lot size that is in that district. That is the minimum lot size I assigned to that. Do the math. It ends up to be just over 29 unit 29 point and change. So, 29 units is how we came up with that. So, there was that's kind of the logical path how do we how we got to that total number. Got it. And then also for and I apologize I can't remember how many potential condos are going in the event center area potentially but will that take away from some of the open space that's currently there? No. So the event center is not open space. Right. Right. Using the nomenclature of uh of the handbook where you know these little green bubbly areas right that are on there. So there's if you look on the very south side and oh there mouse is working. suite. Um, this 45 ft buffer, that's the open space that's within the event center. That's the burm and and existing trees that were preserved there. That was a uh um for the residents that were to the to the south. Um the existing tenative map for eight um town homes or cottages is in this area that I'm circling with the the mouse here. Got it. the lawn, the front lawn area between the mansion and the pond um is restricted. Um so there is actually a no build easement in favor of the south commercial um to preserve their views across the lake and up to the mansion. So nothing can be built on that front lawn outside of there's a parcel that was established for the eight lot tenative map that's approved. Got it. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Dman. So, a question to piggy back off of that, the open space that you mentioned. We've got the access trail. Um, if if you were to go forward without approval, could you develop that with those homes? Like, would that not be there? Uh, there is a trail corridor that's shown in the existing PUB. It is just a small kind of narrow corridor. It's a it's a there's pathways already built. There's already a pathway in there. Um, so it would just be that and whatever we felt like we could push the rear of the lots uh up to that. There's no width identified in the current in the PUB currently. So this on some level improves that. Yes, it does. Thank you. In addition to right now we could build seven lots there and there the rear yard could be, you know, call it 20 ft from the rear yard of the existing homes there and they could be two-story homes. no restrictions on uh you know the setbacks would be just whatever it is in the estates residential. So what we've also built in is further restrictions for you know that 50- foot buffer and singlestory homes in in the anything adjacent to that 50 foot buffer. So there is further restriction because of this amendment than what would be in there now. So yes, it's more homes but you could have bigger homes, taller homes closer to those folks that are in village 3. Nicer homes. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Williams, for you, Andy. Um, I didn't know if it was an appropriate question, but I think I'm going to piggyback on this one. Okay. Tell me if it's not. Yeah. What is Can you speak on what um if this if this motion is denied, what is the what is your feeling on on what the developers prepared to do? and and what's the outcome of a failed motion here when there is potential to obviously go back to what was originally zoned. So yeah, if this fails, we have the ability to submit a tenative map for seven lots on what is called out there as village 8 or the existing equestrian center. Have full right to do that. What about the rest of the community? So the rest of the community, yeah, we would have, you know, there's obviously no other considerations for open space. Um there's no reduction in the total number of units. it would still be 722. Um there's no reduction which that big reduction obviously is in in village 7 going from 310 units potentially down to 107 units potentially. Um so those are the the ramifications. Thank you. Uh Commissioner DR and this might be for Leah or or Mike. Um, so if I'm just curious if if we can we say yes to changing the uh open space but then no to I'm just not sure like if if that's the case like what what do we what are our options? Just curious. The amendment is contingent upon the master plan amendment. So the master plan amendment from Yeah. Otherwise it's it's they have seven lots now regardless of what is designated that's in the handbook which supersedes the master plan but without the amendment to the master plan they cannot get the additional units in village 8. Okay. Thank you. Uh one followup question. So Commissioner Jockman the the initial condition though from city council implied that the developer could also develop the event center. Um, couldn't that happen if we don't offer approval? Uh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Jackman. Say it to say it again. A little tired. The Yeah, the initial condition of approval by city council stated that the development could occur across the some of the equestrian center and the event center. Yes. Right. So, that's not that's not something that would come before the planning commission. So my interpretation of that is that they could develop the event center if this was denied. They they already have um eight units approved through a tenative map for the event center. And the if village 8 if this does not get approved, they can still come forward with a tenative map for seven units at the equestrian center. the the units at the on at the event center. There is an existing approved tenative map for those units. Yeah. And they're just on that south side there. There's nobody who could like Yeah. I'm not really referring to those though the specific event center like but I think I got it now. So, thank you. Okay. Are we moving to discussion? Um, yeah, I'll just make one last maybe statement and maybe you'll tee us up for discussion or give give the applicant or staff an opportunity to maybe chime in. But given the number of amendments to that this PED has undergone long before my time. Um, but I've actually like chair Vermier have already been here long enough to have been part of a few rodeos of this. um and the efforts that residents are making uh for this latest goaround. I do believe it's entirely fair to, you know, ask the applicant to try to meet them halfway, which I believe Andy's team is trying. I do believe there's still a little room, you know, to to give. And so I'm just wondering if Andy if there's something else that you can can offer as a olive branch to to the residents or because really want you guys to kind of sort it out, right? and uh um any drilling for the record. Um so I am the applicant's representative. I can't make full decisions on what actually gets included. I'm I'm the mouthpiece uh if you will. So at this time, no, I can't make any further concessions. I think what um you know my client has has done as far as um you know yes they made a proposal um we feel it's a very reasonable proposal staff has felt it's a very reasonable proposal staff and their presentation presented to you that the densities that we're proposing on village 8 are not out of line with what's adjacent to it. Um so given that we feel like it is more than compatible. Um furthermore um given that um the overall number of units within Ranchera is is so significantly below what could have been developed um there is um a good argument to have a little bit higher density on village 8 um because there were a lot more units that were anticipated in the whole of the PUB. Um, so right and I guess I guess you know there could be per perhaps more density on village 8 but also with a little give of a little bit more POS for instance right for for usable open space or a commitment to some sort of access maybe it's not CRO because of what you explained but maybe an alternative route just for ease of access not just for you know kicks in uh fun but more out of convenience for accessing what I presume are mostly medical offices there, right? And yeah, so yeah, as far as access goes, no, there's no change proposed to the access of Rancher. It it is a gated residential community. It has two gates, one on Talbot, one off of Kitsky there. Um, so that's access control. We're not looking to add another gate, another access control. So that's not something that's on the table. Um, there is pathways and there will be sidewalk connections to Talbot. So there is a pedestrian route to get there. um providing additional convenient ones seems a little odd to me because we've actually if you look at this there's a lot of pedestrian connectivity um throughout you know there was a it's funny because the discussion you know going back to 2014 there was a desire to have public um you know uh pedestrian pedestrian access go through the middle of ranch air to get folks down to the south commercial um and what the compromise was was the lake ditch trail to get them down to domani they could get over because they wanted it to be this gated community. Um, but if you look at kind of this, you know, trail and pedestrian circulation, right? It's focused to get folks to the south commercial area for that, you know, that's that village. It's that, you know, kind of living room, if you will, for the third place. It's referred to in a lot of planning, uh, jargon, uh, for folks to go, you know, have a drink and have a coffee and things like that. So, it was planned as kind of this little insular infill multi mixeduse community um with access to uh Bartley Ranch and Wheatland Park, ample parkland to the like adjoining us to the west. So, uh and and kind of those commercial amenities in there. So, a a and uh the club now at Ranch Air, the big, you know, the big clubhouse facility. So from our perspective, from my perspective, that's ample and no additional is required. Okay, great. Thanks Andy. Can we move to discussion? Deliberation. All right. Um I guess I'm just going to start for the sake of I've got the mic. Um let's sort of differentiate the asks here. The big ask is of course village 8 single family. If we don't do anything, you get seven lots. They'll probably be very nice homes. No question. Um I think a very clear case has been made by our staff planning and by Andy that you do have density across the street with village 4. You have cluster lots to the south. the how the lots would be laid out I guess would be the big you know negotiation point 29 could fit 15 could fit but that seems like that would be the next phase that comes to us as a tenative map why there's so much echo but um so that will come back to planning commission for sure um village 7 we are in a final map stage it sounds like that's going to be recorded the likelihood of that getting overturned and and then 107 being there. That seems rather extraordinary. Is that realistic from a city standpoint? I mean, functionally, I probably have the biggest concern having visited this project site and spending time with the homeowners is they bought something that they feel they're not getting. That's unfortunately not a planning issue, but it's very much a civil issue. um with the exception of the community space that I even recall village 7 when the tenative map came to us that the sales office was a commercial space um and so now it seems like maybe that's going to be raised five lots could go there realistically is that happening um Andy Derling again um so the sales center which is in that little carveout in village 7 there at the southwest corner um no there's not plans to raise Right. So what I tried to um articulate right is that in planning for it in the same way that the event center and the equestrian center had some sort of underlying residential density it seemed appropriate turned off. If it failed to be something right then it has uh an ability to be something else. Um so the history of that uh it it is not a historical structure. It was built in, you know, kind of the, you know, the last 20 years or so. Um, it was John Hara's personal photo studio, uh, and garage and storage facility. Uh, it was then souped up, if you will, um, by the master developer as the sales center, and it has kind of a lot of the memorabilia that they obtained from John Hera of his dad, uh, and the Hera's hotel legacy. Um, and so that's and it's and it's operated as really his professional office. um the the master developers professional office for the last 10 plus years. So that's the history of that. If it it you know we included it as a clubhouse potential um if you had the scenario that village 7 developed as 310 condos. Yeah, it probably warrants that there needs to be another um small you know um amenity right that would be specific to that use. But given how um the whole project is developed at such a lower density, it's just not, you know, there's going to be a little over 400 homes in Ranch Aaron and you've got a 12 acre um club facility on the southside there in the event center. That seems pretty ample to me. And if you look at, you know, in context of other communities, Somerset, Wingfield Springs, um that have similar situations, it's actually more robust. I suspect a few people have a difference of opinion in the room. Um, but appreciate the feedback. Other questions, but this is really deliberation. So, it's really amongst us for discussion. Commissioner Williams, for the record, um, I one thing I observed there was um a discussion by two individuals that separated their um, proposal. Okay. Dave and Christine. Um, one thing that came to mind coming from the HOA world is a lot of the things that they were asking for are actually very easily accomplished under HOA control. And um, while while they're begging the developer to do certain things like trees and fences and converting open space, when the development gets turned over to the HOA, which is then filled with homeowners, that's under their purview to change. And that's what the community entrusts the HOA to do is improve common area spaces. And so I feel like they're to not mention that through this process they're going to gain control but also be able to fix some of the things that they're saying that they would like the developer to fix. Um just just kind of had to be said and I just come from that world. uh we do a lot of common area maintenance and common area upgrades and we convert a lot of things on behalf of the community but it has to be under the guise of an HOA which is run by the resident. So um I just wanted to kind of throw that out there on those things because those asks were very particular to upgrading what they currently have or refurbishing or adding to. No, Commissioner Velto deliberation. Yeah, thank you. Um I I guess I'll address where I see disputes in some of the required findings. Uh two some of the facts that jump out to me as being most significant is the reduction in the total number of allowed units. Um, while I am the type to tend to like more units and more housing because I think that's good, I do see this as a major point of benefit potentially for what the homeowners are looking for. Uh, and given that there's uh kind of more of a reallocation of the density, not an increase in the total density. I think this fits within the broader uh PD framework and is also compatible with what's adjacent to the area. Uh, I also am kind of compelled by this potential public benefit. I understand that as a city, we don't have any control over the HOA, but it sounds like with this amendment, it could potentially empower the homeowners to take control of the over the HOA. And I think Commissioner Williams explained potential benefits and ways that that could end up addressing some of their concerns. I I also think it's important to consider that um the open space zoning was not really done as a formal conservation mechanism. rather it seems like it was an oversight and given that it was always contemplated that there would be some sort of development I'm less inclined to want to prevent changing uh that open space and want to in like the idea of it moving to uh to to housing units. So, I I guess in short, I can I can make the findings and I I think that the applicant has done some work to address some of the concerns of the neighbors. Um, and I understand that there's probably things they could do more, but I I I think I'm satisfied and can make the findings to support the uh the applicant. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Jockman. So, I'll say a few things. Um, obviously there's been some discussion and deliberation about possibly modifying some of the number of units or the open space and so forth. Um, the open space that's being referenced in Village 8 is right next to Bartley Regional Park. Um, the applicant's clearly making an effort for access to be preserved to the that park. Um the process within the county while this is not our under our purview is remarkably arduous to get rid of a park like that one uh which uh commissioner Bera you you touched on a little bit. So I I feel like the applicant is making an effort to and I touched on it earlier that guiding principle of connectivity and access. They're they're making that effort to do that. Um, when we talk about the number of units that would be approved as a part of this, like you know, I guess it makes me a little bit uncomfortable. Things get dynamic. This is the application that's before us and um, I'll speak to that. At this point, I feel comfortable making the findings with regard to what's before us tonight. Thank you, Commissioner Ber. for the record. I think part of the concern I'm hearing from residents tonight and this meeting with them is that um and I do appreciate your your comment uh Commissioner Williams on the HOA and I think the concern is that by the time they might get control of the HOA a lot of the key amenities that they seek to preserve or enhance may be gone for whatever reason right prior to their control. And so I'm just trying to strike a balance here where it's a win-win for for all parties involved, you know, the best that we can do within our purview. So that's kind of what I'm noodling on. So, yeah, Commissioner Delvr and um and again, I can see, you know, I don't think anybody has issues necessarily with um removing the public space from the equestrian or was the equestrian area and words like equestrian and horses and stuff like that. Um, I think that the density is the question and and again I I know that you can't speak to um the developer and again this is what's before us. Um but you know again could there be fewer homes? Could one of those lots be turned into a dog park? Those kinds of things. Those are just you know some of the things that I'm I'm thinking about. I mean, I think um as it's presented, I think, you know, I can I can find most of the findings. I'm still just kind of uh kind of like Commissioner Bisera just trying to figure out if there's some balance that can be found somewhere. Maybe not tonight. I mean, not that we're going to continue this. Yeah, sure. I I guess to build upon that, Commissioner Basser, for the record, um I think you know, ideally I would have wanted the um residents and the applicant to find some middle ground themselves. Uh may not happen as uh fellow commissioner mentioned. Uh but I would implore, you know, however this goes tonight and uh undoubtedly there'll be some more conversations at council would implore, you know, the the applicant to continue the conversation with the resident and find um you know, some more middle ground based on what's been discussed and shared tonight because I think there is some room, you know, for a bit more give. Um yeah, so I'll leave it at that. And so if if I do give a support on this this evening, it will be with uh with with that reservation and and that advice, I guess, those recommendations to continue to find some solutions um together. Boy, um are you looking at me for a reason? No. Um you're up. I'm up. Oh boy. So, this is this one's another difficult one and an evening of difficult decision making. I can support a change from PGOS to single family. I again, the zoning was in place, but the master plan wasn't. I can of course support a cleanup of just changing numbers and moving the words equestrian. Um, I'm really challenged by a community that feels that they are being intimidated. I've heard the words threatened. I've heard things that are just really unpleasant to hear about a city that's creating space for people to live and thrive and that the residents feel that they move to a place that they don't have a a voice or that they aren't able to get the things that they need to feel that what they bought is what they're actually having. Unfortunately, we don't get to make those choices at this board. Um, I I will say when you show something like access granted and then that's not followed through or if something's labeled as community space and then it's it's not, that is an area where if those kinds of tensions arise, there should be concessions made just in good faith of we're developing something so that we can have a good relationship. Um, and so I too would like to see the developer continue those conversations and really hear out what the residents are feeling and they've I think sort of clearly outlined four conditions that they want some response on and so far it sounds like it's just no, no, no, no. So somehow between now and this will certainly go to city council regardless of our planning commission decisions. Um, you know, I I encourage and I implore everyone to have those conversations with hopes that there's resolution um that doesn't end up in a courtroom somewhere someday. Um, with that, I guess I'd look for a motion and I'm not even committing to voting yes at this point. So, that's where I stand. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend that city council approve the master plan and PUB amendments subject to conformance review by the region regional planning commission. Commissioner Volter, I'll second. Okay. Um, again, this is a super majority vote because it is a master plan amendment. So, all in favor, we're not doing a roll call. Uh, I don't Do we need to do a roll call here? I guess maybe we do. Five. Okay. Commissioner Jockman. Hi. Commissioner Belto, yes. Commissioner Williams, I. Uh, Commissioner Bera. Yes. Commissioner Del Commissioner Delvar. No. Um, but I'm not sure. Uh, I don't know which I guess it would be compatibility is probably. It's just hard because it's like a PUD. So, I'll just go with no because of compatibility. Chair Roire, I'm voting yes because I don't have a finding that I can really lean on here to vote no. Um, and that's a tough place to be for us. Um, I will say that with all of my personal reservations, I really hope you can come to a resolution before city council. So, it it it's approved. Uh, and I will read the appeal language. I need to read the appeal language again. Okay. Any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the planning commission may be appealed to the Reno City Council by the applicant, the mayor, or city council member or a person who is agrieved by the action or inaction. An appeal together with the fees must be filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting the day after the written notice of action is filed with the city clerk. And just for a quick clarification, regardless of whether appeal is filed or not, this will move forward to the city council. Moving closing the public hearing items and trying to get us out of here before Thursday. Uh, let's go to staff announcements. Do we want to skip over regional planning? Oh, I'm sorry. Quick regional planning update. Dr. Jeremy Smith gave a very nice presentation on a deep dive about uh data centers, and I believe he's been asked to come give that same presentation at this joint city uh council and planning commission workshop. Let's go to staff announcements. Yes. And I will be as quick as possible, I promise. Um just some quick council updates. On March 26th, the NDI office resoning was your recommendation was upheld by the council and that was approved. Um, next week on the 9th, the J Resort festival grounds and the OneUp commercial row bar appeals will be heard by the council at 6 p.m. Um, also we will have a presentation coming up on the community survey that the city of Reno is doing through by uh, excuse me, Chris Bradley with our policy and strategy department. So, that will be coming on your future agendas. As I mentioned the last meeting, the next meeting is fairly length or the next agenda will be fairly lengthy. Once we get through that, we'll bring our trains back just in the interest of time. So, thank you. Great. All right. Suggestions for future agenda items. And I have one just uh based on the public comment we got at the beginning of the evening. I'm sure that nice woman is not listening any longer, but it would be nice to learn a little bit more about co-housing models and shared ownership models and some of these alternative housing approaches. Any other ideas? Sure. Uh, Commissioner Mera, just Mike, um, uh, I was asked as well just by a resident about, um, noticing and if we can have like a presentation on what that looks like, particularly because they're renters, and I think this has been discussed at uh, council at times, too, that uh, uh, renters don't necessarily always get notified. it's the owners and the owner might live in Arizona for all we know and and then they feel left out of the the public input process and so just seeing where we can improve prove that possibly not just at this level but council uh Commissioner Jockam so at the um the MRPA meeting last week where uh Commissioner Biseran and myself were both alternates uh Mr. Smith uh mentioned to me that uh while Sparks and Wo both have uh designated methods for identifying alternates in the event of an absence, Reno does not have that. And that makes his job difficult. He had to email everyone looking for somebody. And um I I'm not sure whose purview this is. If it's the planning commissions or if it's city council, but to make his life easier, it would be of value to uh identify a method. I'm not advocating for a certain method, just something for um that to be more orderly in the future. Thank you. Excellent. All right, let's go to any remaining public comment. I do not have any public comment forms. We do not have any participants in the Zoom meeting who have their hand raised. Fantastic. And the chambers are now empty. So I move to adjourn. Any seconds? Let's wait two more minutes. Let's wait two more minutes. No. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi.