City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

four on the Zomb. Change. All right. This is the city of Reno Planning Commission meeting. This is Wednesday, April 1st, 2026. The time is t 6 pm. We will begin with the uh pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Gonini. I alian to the flag.

Madame clerk, roll call. David Jockman here. Jacob Williams absent. Manny Bera absent. Christina Delviar present. Christ or Tina Gianiini here. Carrie Roier is absent. Alex Velto here. We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission.

Thank you, madam clerk. So with those absences, that will require that we postpone item C5 on tonight's agenda. That is the master plan conformance amendments. And we will hear that uh hopefully at our next meeting, April 15th. So with that postponement uh we will actually now move on to item A3 public comment. Madame clerk,

it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Commi, comments heard under this item will be limited to 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'll be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Um, we did receive correspondence that was general in nature. Uh, those were forwarded to the commission and entered into the record. With that, I do not have any request to speak forms in person. We do not have anyone online with their hand raised for this opening public comment period.

Any request to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, we will now move forward to approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda subject to that uh item C5 being moved to the next meeting? I'll move to approve. Second. Motion and second. All in favor say I. I. I motion carries unanimously. Too kind. Item A5, approval of the minutes. This is from our fourth our March 4th, 2026 meeting. And uh also the minutes from our March 18th, 2026 meeting. Uh move to approve both meeting minutes. Second.

Motion and second. All in favor say I. I. Motion carries unanimously. That moves us to item B, staff announcements. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple quick announcements. The Aspen View Drive rear setback deviation that was continued by the planning commission at your last meeting has been withdrawn. The applicant has revised his plans and no longer requires a minor major deviation. Um, no other announcements. There are no planning cases scheduled for the next city council meeting. So, that's it for tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Items item C. We will move on to public hearings. We will take these in order tonight. First item is item C1, staff report for possible action. Recommendation to city council. This is case number LDC26-000031. Ridge Park zoning map amendment. We will begin with a presentation from Miss Mcadin.

Hey, commissioners. Grace McAdin, senior management analyst for the record. um here to present on the Ridge Park zoning map amendment. So the subject site is just over one and a half acres in size. Um but that's part of a larger 13.22 acre site. So what they're requesting a zoning map amendment on is just that little sliver of of uh the site. The applicant's requesting a zone change from multif family 14 units per acre to general commercial. The master plan on the whole site is suburban mixed use. Um this doesn't require a master plan amendment. So, it's just the zone change and this zone change is supported by multiple of our master plan policies uh that were discussed in the staff report. So, as stated previously, the applicant's requesting a change for just that sliver from multif family 14 units breaker to general commercial. Uh general commercial is a conforming district with that SMU master plan land use designation. Like I said, no master plan amendment needed and it just will make the whole parcel kind of consistent, allow for some um easier processing for development. So, as far as development standards, this will make the whole site consistent. It cleans up the parcel. So, when we're applying development standards, it's a little bit difficult when you have a split zone parcel. It's allowed. It's not that it's non-conforming. Um, but let's say MF14 has, you know, 15 foot front setbacks and general commercial has zero footfront setbacks. It just allows that we don't have to apply that MF14 on that small sliver since the projects for the parcel as a whole. Either way, the project that's associated with this zone change can move forward. So, in conclusion, staff was able to make all the recommended findings and the recommended motion is on your screen. I'm available for questions and I believe the applicant has a short presentation as well.

Good evening. For the record, Dave Snellgrove. I'm planning manager with Bowman. Uh with me in the audience tonight is Mr. Scott Montgomery with the Bates uh company. They are the applicant on the project and property owner. and I also have Billy Anderson and Matthew Claudefelder with Lumis and Associates who have worked on this project with us. I won't go through the presentation unless you'd like me to. I think Grace covered the the biggest issues on this. You know, one of the things and we we do have a following case which is the tenative map with that split zoning. We actually had a zoning line that went right down and split houses or lots. So the front h part of your house would be general commercial and the back part would be MF14. So we do feel that this cleans up and and meets all the legal findings that are necessary. Be happy to go through any any questions that you have and I do have slides available that I could do that. With that I'll close my presentation and be available for any questions.

Thank you. We will now go to uh disclosures from the commission followed by public comment. Commissionerto. Commissioner Valto. No disclosures. Commissioner WR received and read material and am familiar with the site. Commissioner Gonfiantini read and reviewed materials for re familiar with the site. Commissioner Jockman on this matter. I sought guidance from legal council Lumis and Associates as a subconsultant of my employer on a project in the city of Fernley that I am working on in this agreement. They are employed by my firm Kimley Horn. here. I do not have a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of the applicant or their representatives and can be fair and impartial in my deliberation regarding this item. Madam clerk, public comment.

I have not received any public comment for this item. We will now uh do we have any requests to speak in chambers? We will now close public comment and move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Delvr. Um Grace, sorry to make you And this kind of goes to the next item that we will see. But I'm trying to understand one why um why not why not multifamily for both? Why this particular designation? Um especially because then the next one we're going to see is the tenative map for housing. Just I was just kind of curious as to

Sure. that decision. So, I don't want to get too far into the next project. Um, but the split zoning was a result of a boundary line adjustment that was approved um not too long ago. And so, the whole parcel used to be general commercial. They used to be two separate parcels. Um, and so the project was previously approved on that general commercial parcel. So everything that they had done for this project planning wise as far as the the lot sizes, the allowed uses, everything like that was under that general commercial zone. So it just made the most sense to clean it up and bring this one into conformance.

Great. Thank you. Um and then the and again maybe this is for um the next item, but one of the public comments was asking about the trails, which I know in the next item you talk about. So if if we need to we can we can wait until that to talk about the trips. I'll um I have a slide in the ne my next one for that so I'll punt for the next item if that's okay. Perfect. Thank you Commissioner Belto. Uh I don't have any questions. I'm prepared to make a motion unless you would like to do deliberation.

Uh seeing no uh flags from the commission, please proceed. In the matter of case number uh oh LDC26-000031 based upon compliance the applicable findings I move to recommend that city council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance and I can make all the findings. Commissioner Gianini I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously for zero. That concludes item C1. We will now move on to item C2, staff report for possible action, case number LDC26-000032, Ridge Park Tenative Map. Miss Mcadin,

I'm getting my steps in. Good evening. Grace McAdin, senior management analyst again for the record, here to discuss LDC26-000032. And this is the tenative map that was associated with the prior zone change. So the subject site is 13.22 acres in size. Um, I forgot to orient you all last last presentation, but this is up by the Walmart off of Lemon Drive. Uh, and the applicant is requesting an amendment to a previously approved tenative map. This amendment would ultimately allow for 20 additional lots, um, which would result in 99 total lots. This request is also associated with an alternative equivalent compliance for street trees, which the previous request also had, and it includes a conditional use permit for fills exceeding 10 ft in height, disturbance of a major drainage way, hillside development, and more than 20 units. So, I'd like to start with some background just because this has some um it gets a little murky just because it has some previously approved tenative maps and projects associated with it. So in May of 2022, this body approved a tenative map for 80 town homes. In May of 2023, that request was modified to remove a unit and only be for 79 units total. And then in July of 2024, there was that boundary line adjustment I discussed. And that increased the boundary of this parcel and allowed for some reconfiguration and additional lots to be placed on the site. And then that led them to this particular request. So going back to the previous design or the previous presentation since that was recommended to be approved we'll we'll hopefully see this uh site change to all general commercial. Um the base density is 45 dwelling units per acre for general commercial but the applicant is only proposing about 7.4 dwelling units per acre. Again the master plan for the site is suburban mixed use.

So, as stated, I think this is a good slide to kind of show you before and current proposal because ultimately that's what we want to see, right? So, this includes 99 attached single family homes with 4 acres of undisturbed open space and 303 off streetet parking and that far exceeds our requirement of 198 required parking spaces. So, this is kind of one of those products that's allowing for um you know, one of those missing middle type housing types with ample parking again, but it's also surrounded by some other types of um multifamily housing, attached single family, and then there's those neighborhood centers to the south souththeast. I think these units will be a mix of three and fourbedroom units and then they'll include a trail that connects this one to some of the adjacent development. And so just for your all or your um to tell you which one's previous and which one's current, the one up on top is the um is the uh Oh, I'm sorry. I got a slide ahead. These are both the same plan, but one is showing you kind of the site plan. The other is show helping showing you kind of the trail access. I'm sure Dave was like, "Wait a minute. I apologize about that." Um, so when we talk about compatibility, um, like I said, there's some different types of housing types surrounding this site, which is good. We we see some multifamily. Um to the west we see some attach additional attached single family and then we see that proposed highland tenative map which you guys just extended last meeting and then we've got some neighborhood commercial neighborhood centers surrounding the site as well. Now we can talk about the comparison of the two sites. Um and so previously approved is on the top of your screen.

The proposed is on the bottom. And something I wanted to to touch on was kind of the improved vehicular access and pedestrian access that resulted from these um changes. And so as you can see, there's not any more dead-end streets like you saw in the previous plan. We've got a little bit more through streets. Um so it just makes a little bit more sense from vehicular access perspective. And then we have those um trails which help improve the pedestrian access to and from some of the adjacent sites. All right, staff was able to make all the recommended findings. Recommended motion is on your screen and I'm available for questions and the applicant has a presentation as well.

Good evening. Again, for the record, Dave Snelgrove, planning manager with Bowman and uh still in the audience with me, Mr. uh Scott Montgomery at the Bates Companies and Matthew Claude Filter and Billy Anderson with Lumis Associates. It was refreshing to have Grace come up. It's been a long week to me already and it's good to know that I'm not the only one that fries out. Um yeah, I was sitting there going, "Wait a minute, those are the same." though I will go through a few slides here based on some of the questions that came up in the last one to make sure that we appropriately covered those. I'll scan through some of this stuff that that Grace already covered. This is the prior um prior layout. And you can see we basically had a street that went in and worked like a lasso in that blue line. And I circled in purple those deadend streets that kind of get rectified and improved quite a bit with the new layout. So this is the new layout. You can see those streets that were dead end before. They go all the way through. This is better for day-to-day and also emergency access. And also to the the uh road that goes around, it doesn't go into a lasso. It goes in a full loop. Again, much better for fire access. This property is right next to bus stop Route 7. Um it's in an area that's identified in the master plan as being a uh uh it's a commercial neighborhood center area. There are certain nodes and Golden Valley uh Lemon Drive and Stead Boulevard in the North Valley's area all all identified for this. So, we feel that with the trails, which I'll get to in a minute, and how those link in that we've actually created something that that'll really enhance and be able to be something a little bit more walkable than what we had the opportunity before. This is the sidebyside comparison of the old plan on the left and the new plan on

the right. The side on the right, that slope going up to Vista Nolles, that was a manufactured slope that was created when Walmart was put in. On that side, we've actually added another elevation. On the right hand side here is a hillside adaptive architecture because we do have some slopes. Again, we are a hillside development on this, but that was all manufactured slope and put in so that they could get access up to the Walmart site. The rest of the homes will be in the twostory which is on the leftand side. That's just an example. They do have different elevations. I believe we've got a total of five different elevations within the product. kind of a a rendering and some floor plans. Those those uh hillside adaptive ones on the bottom in the blue, they'll actually have a fourcar garage area and then two living uh areas up above. Um so that that adds quite a bit to the parking. The rest of uh the homes will all have at least a twocar garage. Some do have a two-car driveway as well. So this area, this is the area that we looked at in the last case that was that was the reszone area. That area is a steep slope down and gets some interesting use. Uh cart rolling down down the hill towards the drainage way is one that's fairly popular. I had to enhance. You couldn't really see the cart as well, but I enhanced it here on the right. We've got more cart rolling uh into the drainage way and also camping. though what the opportunity in in gaining this property and bringing it into the subdivision rather than kind of being this no no man's land. It allows the future homeowners association to have responsibility and maintenance for that area because it'll affect them the most. So, we feel that it's a

everybody gets their own cart.

What's everybody get their own? Well, they they do have a cart corral down next to the down near the bus stop that I think that's where a lot of these stacked up carts came from that they were from the cart corral. Someone was waiting for the bus for too long. Overall, this is the the trails map and the pedestrian access map. So, the purple lines are the sidewalks within the subdivision area and then the green lines are the trail area. So, we do have a trail that goes out behind the homes and connects out to the bus stop. Um, and then we also have a branch that goes off and gets up to Vista Null quicker. So, people from the Enclave subdivision, this subdivision, could get on the trail. They wouldn't have to go out to Sky Vista Parkway. they could actually go on a trail and get access up to a shopping area in a much more convenient fashion and quicker fashion than would be the case if they had to rely just on the sidewalks going around the sidewalks in and what I've showed with the trail. that connects in with the North Valley's regional park trail system and can get you all the way over into the trail area which is more of a passive recreation or you can get down into the active recreation area for the North Valley's regional park not having to walk along Sky Vista Parkway. So we do feel that that's a big positive with this tying into the overall trails out in the area. So, Phil, it provides the 20 additional lots um within the proof subdivision. If we I think if we'd been at 19 lots, I think this could have gone administratively, but we were at 20, which required us to come come with the additional tenative map. This adds additional diversity to the housing. The housing out in the general area, you do have some apartment housing, you have some detached single family. This is a duplex type product, a little bit smaller lot size. There are some others a little bit farther away, but in this general vicinity, it does diversify the housing type uh pro provides for an ownership of a small lot product. It is a very walkable

community and we feel that the trail connections add a lot of positive not only to for this project but for the entire area. So with that, I'll close. We're in agreement with the uh staff's recommendations analysis. We believe that all the legal findings can be made. And because there's only four tonight, I'm gonna beg that all of you vote in favor of this because we need four votes to get a tenative map approved. So with that, I'll close my presentation, be available for any questions. Uh we will go to disclosures. Commissioner Valto, Commissioner Valto, nothing to disclose. Commissioner Delvr received and read materials and I am familiar with the site. Commissioner Confient read and reviewed materials. Familiar with site.

Commissioner Jockan, same as before. On this matter, I sought guidance from legal counsel. Lumis is a subconsultant of my employer on a project in the city of Fernley I'm working on. In this agreement, they are employed by by my firm, Kimley Horn. Here, I do not have a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of the applicant or their representatives and can be fair and impartial in my deliberation regarding this item. Madame clerk, public comment. I have not received any in person and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers? Seeing none, we will close public comment on this item and move to questions from the commission.

Uh, Commissioner Delvr, I'm not sure who wants to answer. It's fine. Um, I wasn't sure what the alternative equivalent compliance was about.

I don't think I have a slide in the back part of this. um get to the site plan. So you look at the site plan, the requirement is that you need to have street trees and they're typically required to be spaced one every 30 ft. We do have a situation going through parts of this where we can put them. We've got a lot of trees going along. You got those two the arrows going north south and down on the southern end of that and on the northern there's a lot of trees on that run. But when you get to portions around over on the eastern side, you get more driveways that are sticking out and we can't meet the spacing requirement for trees. That's what the alternative equivalent compliance is. This is used a lot when you get into Tacourts, hammerhead courts, which is what this was a playoff of. We just ended up extending these straight through that you really can't meet the standard requirement. But what we've done, the same amount of trees will be planted. Those will just be planted in more meaningful areas. So we've got areas over on the eastern side and then up where the trail takes off on the north end of the plan north graphic. That's what the alternative equipment compliance does.

Okay. And then if you can leave the slide up. So you talked about how the the trail is going to go along up Vista Null instead of going on Sky Vista, but is there going to be a crosswalk to cross over to the shopping center or will they cross down at Sky Vista? I believe there's a crosswalk and I don't know if I have a good aerial of it. I believe there's a crosswalk up where the outflow is for Walmart. Okay. So you there's a sidewalk on both sides and you can walk up the sidewalk on the one side closest to the project and then you get up to a crosswalk at the entry to because I don't think there's a crosswalk there now. There is maybe they should paint it a little better.

Um okay. And then I had a question about um charging stations. And I don't know if this is a question for you, Grace, in terms of sort of requirements for that. It's come up a couple of times. I get that there's plenty of parking, but just wondering about EV charging stations. Sure. So, it's currently not in our code as a requirement for um a percentage of them to be EV charging stations. Um, since these ones can be owned independently, they could install their own, right? Maybe I'm thinking like more commercial when we have

Yeah. And there are some building requirements. Um, I think with the recently adopted building code that have some EV um, provisions, but as far as zoning, there's nothing in code yet. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions from the commission? If not, we will move to deliberation and entertain a motion should one be made. Chair, happy to make a happy to make a motion. Uh, in the matter of case number LDC26-000032 based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the tenative map conditional use permit in alternative equivalent compliance subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings. Commissioner Delvr, I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I.

I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously for zero. That concludes item C2. We will move on to item C3. This is a staff report for possible action. Case number LDC26-000053. Coyote crossing time extension. Miss McAdan.

Good evening, commissioners. Grace Mcadin again uh here to present on the coyote crossing time extension. So this body has seen a few of these recently. I think this is one of those application types that comes in clusters. Uh this particular one is the extension of an approved tenative map that was approved in March of 2022. It was for 33 single family lots. It's up in um Ward 4 off of Rockchuck. Um you can see kind of the aerial up on the the left hand side of your screen. The tenative map was also associated with the major site planer view for cluster development fills exceeding 10 ft in height and hillside development. Uh the application request is allowed per NRS uh allows this body to make a two-year time extension and there's no findings. Um, and so short of anything significantly changing with the laws or rules or regulations, typically we see these time extensions granted. This particular one the applicant was requesting due to uh delays that resulted from foreclosure hearings. That's ultimately the presentation. Like I said, there's no particular findings with these types of requests. The recommended motion is on your screen. Um, the applicant should be on via Zoom, but I'm also available if you have any questions. Uh hearing there will not be an applicant presentation. I will move to disclosures. Commissioner Valto.

Commissioner Valto, no disclosures. Commissioner Delvier, no disclosures. Commissioner Gientini, no disclosures. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Uh Madame Clerk, public comment. I do not have any public comment in person or online. Any request to speak in chambers? Seeing none, we will close public comment and move to back to the commission. Commissioner Delvier,

Commissioner, I feel like I'm Commissioner uh Manny today. Um question. Can you help me understand the foreclosure and is is that still potentially impacting the ability for this project to move forward or has that been resolved? The Let's see. I believe there it was in the letter that was submitted. Um so they did take uh title of the property on Jan in January via foreclosure. So it it sounds like that those proceedings have kind of um concluded.

Perfect. That was all that was all I had. Thank you. Commissioner Valto. I that was actually my question. So thank you for asking about that. Have no questions. Would anyone on the commission like to entertain a motion at this time? I am happy to do so. Please proceed.

In the Commissioner WR in the matter of case LDC 260053 based upon compliance with NRS 278360 requirements for presentation of final map or series of final maps, extensions of time. I move to approve a two-year time extension on the Coyote crossing tentative map subject to the original conditions of approval. Commissioner Gianini. I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C3. We will now move to our last public hearing item of the evening. Item C4, staff report for possible action. Case number LDC26-000056, Talis Valley, Villages 16A and 16B. For this item, we will begin with a presentation from Mr. Foster.

All right. Good evening, planning commissioners. Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record. Wonder of all wonders, I am not bringing you a major deviation application tonight. Um, I did think about telling you that tonight was my last planning commission hearing, but I hadn't told Mikeley yet. So, I will see you in two weeks with another major deviation application. All right. Uh, the project site is about 18 1.5 acres in size. Uh, the request before you is a tenative map for 185 unit single family attached or town home subdivision and associated common areas. Uh the zoning is Talis Valley plan unit development and the master plan is suburban mixed use and the there is a sliver of parks, greenways and open space uh on the eastern boundary and on the screen you can see at least seven goals and policies from the master plan that are in support of the proposed request. So the proposed units uh 185 are in planning areas 15 and 16 uh which have multif family residential and neighborhood commercial PUD land use designations. Uh village 16A has a uh 81 lots that yield a net density of 27.9 dwelling units per acre. Um this falls within the minimum and maximum net density range of 15 units per acre and 30 units per acre respectively in planning area 16 uh required by the PUD handbook. The request which aims to provide missing middle housing options features different building configurations. For this village 16A, those 81 lots are arranged in buildings of either three or seven units. While for village 16b, the 104 units are arranged in building configurations of either four or six

units. Those 104 lots yield a net density of 25.9 dwelling units per acre and a total of approximately 6.19 acres of common area and open space is proposed between the two villages. For village uh for both villages, the applicant is requesting a 5-ft minimum rear yard setback. and that's shown in the areas on the screen which is allowed per the PUB section 4.4 to address unique housing products and the front yard and driveway for each village 16A lot which is shown here um is part of a limited common element area owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Here are the recommended findings for a tenative map. Staff can make all recommended findings. Um, I do want to point out that there is a proposed condition change, condition number six on the screen, uh, which has been updated to add clarity and engineering has approved the change. Here's the recommended motion. Again, the motion would include the revision to condition number six as proposed on the previous screen. Uh, the applicant will now be making a presentation and I am available for questions. Good evening, commissioners. Uh Derek Kirkland, uh with Wood Rogers representing the applicant and uh we do have uh Representative TL Talis here tonight um as well as uh members of our team uh to help me answer any questions that you may have. I'll run through quickly. I don't really have a whole lot um to add to this. I just want to point out u mainly this is part of a PUD. Pud is uh uh was approved um almost 10 years ago now. Um but we have there's all most of the stuff in here is basically things that we have to do in the PUD. So all the stuff that you see tonight um is all part of the previous PUD approval um in conformance with that. Um and as we get through some of the final maps will be addressing all

the other uh community contributions. Um there's an overall traffic mitigation plan. So, we do have uh the overall traffic um in in here. So, we'll have still the stu uh two traffic lights uh one on veterans, one on South Meadows. Um we're still making all the connections with the shared use path. Um and then we do have all the uh kind of the connections which also go to the existing surrounding schools. Um and I'll just touch real quickly on on parking. And so each of these units uh in both village A and B have full-size driveways, fulls size garages. So um basically each unit has um four total uh four total spaces. Plus we've added in both villages um additional off- streetet parking to address larger vehicles and or uh guest parking, which is kind of unique when you see a lot of these. You don't see that. But they did want to make sure um as a selling point really is to make sure there's plenty of parking um for this subdivision. Um, I think Jeff did a good job talking about this. Uh, all the exteriors of both villages will be maintained by the HOA. So, basically when you purchase this, you're purchasing the um, basically the interior of the of the unit. You're still purchasing the lot, but basically the HOA will maintain most of the exterior including the driveways. Um, and then um, the will be a uh, these will be twotory units. Um in 16A uh these are typical where you enter through the front uh the front doors in the front of the building. Uh the side units you enter through the side and these will have uh more uh private backyards. Uh and then in 16B uh these are actually the uh same thing. you enter through the sides on the side units uh and then you actually go around and there'll be a um as you can see in the site plan here on 16B basically they'll have sidewalks and entryways uh through the rear part of the building which is actually the front of the building um with the driveway access uh as well from the public

streets. None of these are uh private streets. They're all public streets uh with driveways. Uh and with that I think that was pretty much um all I wanted to add. And so with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. We will now go to disclosures. Commissioner Velto. Uh, Commissioner Velto, familiar with the site and I think I walked the site at some point. Commissioner Delvr read and received and read materials and I am familiar with the site. Commissioner Confient read and reviewed materials.

Uh, Commissioner Jockman, phone call with Mr. Kirkland and prior conversation with members of the representative team. I think it was two months ago or roughly. So, uh, that's it. Additional disclosure. I also communicated with the applicant prior to the meeting. That now closes our disclosures. Uh, madame clerk, public comment. I do not have any public comment in person and we do not have any hands raised online. Any request to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none that we will now close public comment for this item and move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Delvr,

thanks for rise. Um, can somebody walk me through the flood mitigation? Um, I I drove by there today coincidentally with my real estate agent and she was like, "Oh gosh, I would I wouldn't want to sell here because it's always flooded and they're going to need flood insurance." She's going on and on. So, I just want to understand what the flood mitigation is and what that potentially means for either the HOA or the homeowners.

Uh, thank you, uh, Derek Kirkland, Wood Rogers. Um, so, basically with the PUD, it was, um, you know, obviously the PUD approval process went on for several years and that was a big point of contention and and something that we worked really hard to address. Um, so we have uh a FEMA basically we have a Clomar conditional letter of map revision that went through FEMA and the city and all those fun steps. Um, and generally where we landed on is that a lot of the green area along Veterans becomes part of this flood storage. Um, and was was all part of there was a big modeling effort that was done. This uh there was a whole regional flood model that was going on. and we used that uh and built onto that and then added 25% capac so the PUD requires 25% capacity uh in those areas to accommodate the flood and basically a level of protection um and so that is built into the PUD and so all these tenant maps have to comply with that the Clomar so what you see um what you see up there uh what you see now with all the mass grading that none of that could have even taken place uh until basically the Clomar was done And we have in the PD there's a whole basically map that shows you um kind of where the proposed flood zone is um and basically where um a lot of that mitigation takes place.

So yeah, so all the masquerading that you see out there right now is accommodating that flood storage. Okay, great. Thank you. Yep.

Um and then I'm just curious about the roundabouts. What do they call them here? Traffic circles, whatever they're called. I noticed them across the way in the LAR area and I'm just kind of curious as to does is that supposed to slow traffic, help traffic? I thought I say it. There it is. Uh yeah, so there's uh Derek Kirkland Rogers. So there is a series of of roundabouts. Uh a lot a lot of it was built into that master PUD traffic plan uh with the signals and the roundabouts and just improving the flow through here. A lot of it too with some of these close intersection spacing. um they're protected rights in and rights out. So, the roundabouts allow them to kind of go in, make turn movements, and it's just it's overall improves access for uh the overall development.

Okay. I'm just uh people here don't really know how to use those, but hopefully they'll get used to it. Thank you. That's all I had. Uh Commissioner Jockman, I'll ask one question of staff. So, uh, condition 11 requires them to complete the intersection improvements at South Meadows and Echo Valley, um, prior to the first CFO. The the improvements, are there any improvements, um, coming at the Veterans Intersection prior to this tenative map going forward? So, I believe you guys have

Okay. Yeah, I'm going to I'm going to defer to to Wood Rider staff on that. Um but the the conditions that you the condition 11 that you see has been a condition on all of the previous Talis Valley tenative maps in this part of the development. So it's just kind of perpetuating that. Good evening. Shaunie Dunigan Wood Rogers engineer on the project. So the traffic signal is actually almost already permitted. The South Meadows one is permitted. the veterans is in the final stages and so they're actually working on kind of constructing constructing all the backbone and all both of those signals will be active two years a year and a half early next year

early next year so they'll be in place before this is open thank you sorry I have one I have one more question and that might be um for you the is the traffic I know that it's going there's light um going on to veterans. There's no light. If you're going north veterans, you can't turn left in in into the complex. Can we bring that picture back up? Sorry. Oh, now I have to figure this out. Okay, let me go back to the intersections. I think it would be on your guys' presentation.

Sorry. Nope, you're good. Yeah. So, like where it said town center, that was um this

So, there's no there's no traffic light at Town Center Parkway across Veterans. Like no lefthand turn lane if you're going north on Veterans and no left turn. There will be a signal at Veterans and Town Center Parkway if that's where you're referring. So if you're on Town Center Parkway, you can go left and head north on Veterans Parkway. So it'll be like a T intersection. Okay. So it'll be stop lightss on three all three sides. Okay. So there will be there will be a traffic light on veterans going north. Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Hearing none, we will move to deliberations and entertain a motion should one be made. Would you mind putting the motion back on the screen? And I know there was a change from the perfect uh in the matter of case number LDC26-000056 based upon compliance the applicable findings I move to approve the tenative map subject to the conditions listed in the staff report as revised and I can make all the findings.

Commissioner Gentini I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C4. As discussed in the uh approval of the agenda for tonight's meeting, we are postponing item C5 as we do not have enough commissioners to vote on that item. We will now move to item D, business items. Anything from staff? Nothing this evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Item E, Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. Uh, Commissioner Gonfini, would you like to give this one or should I give the update? We had a we had a uh meeting that was cancelled. It we will be using the reserve date which is April 6th. I do not actually know if the agenda has posted for that, but if not, it should be within the next day or two. That will be held at the I believe at the RTC at 6 p.m. Monday, April 6th. There have not been any other meetings since our prior city meeting. Item F, future agenda items. Mr. none. None from staff. Item G, public comment. Madame clerk,

I do not have any public comment for this item. Seeing as though there is nobody in chambers, that concludes this item. We will move to item H for adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? So moved. All second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Meeting. Meeting adjourned.