City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Becerra, I can see you in the Zoom. If you are planning to join, can you just raise your hand so we can get you at it as a panelist?

Thank you.

Clerk, are we ready to go?

Yes, sir.

Okay, this is the City of Reno Planning Commission meeting. Today's date is July 1st, 2026. The time is 6 p.m. We will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Ms. Picotti.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation,

Item A2, roll call. Madam Clerk.

Chair Jocherman.

Here.

Vice Chair Williams.

Here.

Manny Becerra. Absent. Christina Delviar.

Present.

Tina Gambiantini. Here. Sean McCoy.

Present.

Alex Velto. Present. We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission.

Back to you, Madam Clerk. Item 3, A3, public comment.

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 agendized for possible action on today's agenda. When you're 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're 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's disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. We did receive correspondence for this item. These were forwarded to the Planning Commission and entered into the record. With that, I don't have any requests to speak forms in person. We do not have anyone online with their hand raised.

Thank you. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, we will move forward to item a four approval of the agenda for tonight's meeting. Can I get a motion to approve?

So commissioner gonfiantini motion to approve.

We have a motion and a second all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously. Item a five approval of the minutes from our June 17th, 2026 meeting.

Commissioner gonfiantini motion to approve.

Commissioner W.R., second.

Motion and second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Commissioner McCoy, abstain.

Five zero with one abstention from Commissioner McCoy who I believe was absent for that meeting item a six election of chair and vice chair through June 2027 for this item we will take a Motion for either position. I believe in no particular order. Is that correct? Mr. Hall, okay, so we'll open this item for any motions to be made. I

Commissioner Belto, I'll move to elect as chair, Chair Jockaman.

Commissioner Gompiatini, I second.

We have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, would you please conduct a roll call vote for this?

Sure thing. Christina Delviar?

Yes, aye, whatever.

David Jockaman?

Aye.

Tina Gonfiantini? Aye. Alex Valto? Aye. Jacob Williams? Aye. Sean McCoy? Aye. Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. And can I get a motion from this body for position of vice chair?

Commissioner Gonfiantini, I move to make Jacob Williams vice chair.

Commissioner Jock, would you like to second that? Commissioner Valto, I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, back to you.

Christina Delviar. Aye. David Jockerman.

Aye.

Tina Gonfiantini. Aye. Alex Valto. Aye. Sean McCoy.

Aye.

Jacob Williams.

Aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

That concludes item A6. We will now proceed to staff announcements. Mr. Bailey.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. One announcement related to the agenda tonight. Item C1 has been postponed at the request of the applicant. Since the item was noticed, we will take public comment, but there will be no action taken, so there's no need to make a motion for a continuance. We will re-notice that item for a future agenda. Also, Nathan Gilbert, who filled in for me last meeting, mentioned that there was a desire to have a discussion on findings, maybe to work that into a training. Our next meeting, I will say, is a very lengthy, will be a very lengthy meeting. We have nine items tentatively on the next agenda for the 15th. So I'm going to work with Angela Foose and her team to tailor a training. She also has some other trainings for our August 5th meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Raley. That concludes item B. We will now go to our public hearings. This is item C1, and we just heard about that from staff. This is a staff report for possible action, case number LDC26-00086. This is 931 Gordon Avenue, fence height deviation. For this item, I believe we are required to call for public comment. Is that correct, Mr. Hall? So given that we will not have a staff presentation and we will not have an applicant presentation for this, we will now open public comment. I will turn it over to you, Madam Clerk.

We do not have any request to speak forums in person and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised.

Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time? If so, please raise your hand. Okay, seeing as we have no request to speak on this item, Mr. Hall, can you please confirm for the record, do we need to take a motion on this? Would it be prudent to do so or please advise?

I think it would be best to just put it on the record with a motion to continue just to cover all the bases.

Understood. Hearing that, can I get a motion to continue this item? And I believe it is not to a date certain time. Is that correct? I'm seeing nods. Okay, so can I get a motion to continue this item?

Move to continue item C1 to a date uncertain. Commissioner W.R., second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C1 for... That concludes item C1. Item C2, this is a staff report for possible action. This is case number LDC26-00061. This is Starfield one major deviation. For this item, we will begin with a presentation from staff. Ms. Picotti.

Thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. For the record, my name is Leah Picotti, and I am an associate planner with the City of Reno Development Services. This evening, I'm presenting three applications, so this is the first one, and this is Starfield One major deviation. So the site that we're looking on is up by the university. It's a fairly small, irregularly shaped parcel. The applicant is requesting to reduce the required 15-foot front setback by 50%, as allowed by a major deviation, to allow for a seven-foot, six-inch front setback. This particular site is located in the multi-family residential zoning district. This district allows for 30 units per acre. The key issues that we analyzed here were the overall site design and compatibility with surrounding development and uses. So looking at overall site design, this is the rendering and the site plan provided by the applicant. They are proposing a seven unit residential complex. The complex will have amenities such as a rooftop deck, landscaping, trash and service areas, and site lighting. There is a proposed parking garage located on the first floor of that, and the applicant has also elected to put three on-street parking spaces there as well, which would be open to the public, but it's worth mentioning. Regarding compatibility, this particular piece of property, as I stated, is very skinny, but it is located right kind of in an area where it may not have been developable if it wasn't if the major deviation wasn't granted. To the north, we have Hillside Cemetery. To the east, we have fraternity and sorority housing. To the west, we have a single family residence just adjacent there, but then across Nevada Street, we have more multifamily housing over there. And to the south, which is the property that would be most impacted by this reduced setback, it's a vacant lot that is steeply sloped and drops down to the I-80. Major deviation recommended findings are on the board. Staff was able to make all of these findings. We don't see that it's gonna significantly impact nearby properties. It is an infill site. It's consistent with surrounding development and there will be no detriment to the public health. We did get a public comment on this today. It went to NAB and generally everything at NAB said that they were really excited about this, it was really good use of an infill parcel, there was a little bit concern about parking in this area, but otherwise it was generally positive. Other than that, we only received one public comment, and that was received today. And there were a couple of questions in that that I just want to answer. And one was, how did they allow for seven units? And the reason for that is that in the MF30 zoning district, it's allowed 30 units per acre. However, we have a density bonus incentive for small units. So if your units are under 1,200 square feet, the... the average size of the units is under 1,200 square feet, you're allowed a 35% increase in density, which is how they got to that seven. So if you do the math on it, it comes out to about 7.86 is about the number of units that would be allowed. Again, it's a strangely shaped parcel, so we have really worked with the applicant on getting that, but the average unit size comes to just above about 1,000 square feet. Now, in regards to parking, which was the other concern that was brought up by NAB and also brought up in that public comment, this particular site is located in an area that is in close proximity to our downtown and public transit. And because of that, we allow for a 60% reduction in the required parking. Now, actually, in the MF30 zone, for multifamily uses, we require essentially one parking space per unit. So seven units would require seven spaces. And then because of the proximity to public transit and downtown, that number can be reduced by 60%, which means that only, like, three spaces would actually be required. However, we did discuss this with the applicant, and the applicant said, no, no, no, no, we know parking is a major issue in this area, so we want to do as many onsite parking spaces as we possibly can. We worked with the roads department to get them those three onsite spaces, and even though they won't be specifically designated for this project, It is right in front of the project, so it will be available to them. There's five onsite spaces in that parking garage, including one ADA space as well. Well, that concludes my presentation, the recommended motions on the board. I'm available for questions, and I don't know if my applicant is here. Yes, he is. Okay.

Do you have a presentation too?

I do. All right. Come on up.

Madam Clerk, do you have that? Perfect. Okay. Please state your name for the record.

Taylor Cohey. Leah took most of my presentation, so I'm going to probably skip through a lot of this here. I'll make this quick for everybody. I just wanted to give you my perspective as the developer here and the applicant. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that I also live in Ward 1. I went to UNR. This is a project that is close to me and not something that I just look at on paper. I care about the characteristics of this neighborhood and doing a project that's gonna add to the landscape and be something that's gonna last for years out there. So if you wanna, can I do it right here? Okay, so like they said, it's a very unique site and I probably put a regular in this presentation way more than I've ever said that in my entire life. but the reason for this is really driven by the site. And it's so that we can comply with the life and safety standards in IFC Apex D, section D105.3, which requires that at least one aerial fire access route be located at least 30 feet from the building. So that's really been the driving force. It's not about density, it's not about changing land use, it's just about creating a, meeting the requirements of the density there and the neighborhood and being safe with our fire code. So just briefly here, it's a three-story building. I'll show you guys some renderings and site plan here. We have 7,110 square feet of livable space, seven units, 15 beds. That will be three 700-square-foot studios, two 1250 three-bedroom, three-baths, and another two 1255 three-bedroom, three-baths. These are really designed to cater to students, so each unit has in-unit laundry, every bedroom has its own private bathroom. So because of fair housing, we will market it to everybody, but we anticipate students being the vast majority, if not all of the applicants and residents. So again, like Lee had mentioned, we have five garage spaces, one van accessible, and three adjacent off-site spaces. So again, the site, as you can see, a regular site. We're about a third of a mile from the campus, so very walkable. surrounded by similar college uses. There's students running right next door, sorority house right next door as well, then fraternity houses. So we feel like this is very much in line with the neighborhood usage. And again, the request is fully driven by the site dynamics. Just some pictures here so you can get an actual visual and see. There's a bit of a slope, and it's right now vacant. And as you can see with the setbacks here from the original site plan, that it's very difficult to fit anything on there that could actually you know, work that's in line with the zoning. So again, we just looked at the site plan, which you've already taken a look at, so I'm not gonna spend much time here, but I just wanted to mention we do have, there's an existing guardrail along the back of the site, and we plan to replace that and make actually some very nice fencing up there, add opaque fencing on both ends, and then we have a 400 square foot gathering space that will be raised planters, shade space, and so forth in front of the community as well. This is just a breakdown of how the units work. So your first floor, we have the parking garage. We've got the FCC room, covered entry, and then a patio for the studio. Then we have stairs that lead up to the rooftop deck on the edge of it. That will be controlled access, providing both two ends of fire access because we really want to have the amenity because if you look at this site, it sits around University Terrace, obviously a little bit of topography, looks right down at downtown, so just amazing views. So we really designed the building to take full advantage of that. So just some pictures here of our rooftop decks that we have a concept, and then obviously some other amenities. So they're fully furnished units, private bathrooms, as I mentioned, and unit washer and dryer. We'll have electric fireplaces in the great rooms, and then very, very secure entry with biometric controls, just making sure that it's a safe place. So the building itself, we're going to have a smooth stucco exterior with slatted wall, manufactured wood accents on it. We have the restraint in the West University overlay regarding the roof pitch has been conformed to with our 412 pitch. And we have a lot of balconies and a lot of undulation in the front of the building to give it depth and dimension. So this is a rendering of what we anticipate it looking like. One more shot. One on the bottom left here is gonna be from the back end. So if you're looking at this from the cemetery towards downtown. And again, because of the irregular nature of the site, it really comes in like a, very much like a V. Okay. So beyond this, um, just, we think it's very much in line with the, with the Reno's vision here. It's a context sensitive, it's walkable with the university. Um, you know, we, we are not stressing the infrastructure and creating more diverse housing opportunities. It's a physical fit. I think the operations of it will be fluid and obviously safety. One thing about this site too, if you've been around this area or walked around here, there is definitely a population of homeless that will walk around this area. We just had to, we had an encampment on the site recently that was removed and we have sorority girls and young college kids accessing this back road, walking at night with no lights. So we think it's going to add a, you know, we'll be happy to make that a safe site that's in proper use. Okay, well, Lee already had her findings out here, so I'm not going to belabor this too much, but there's conditions and commitments that we've made, so those are in the staff report that we've all agreed to and will adhere to as well, and that's all I got, so any questions and comments, I'm available.

Thank you, we will now go to disclosures from the commission and then we will go to public comment and then come back to questions. Commissioner Valto.

All right, Commissioner Valto received and reviewed public comment, familiar with the area.

Commissioner Gonfiantini read and reviewed materials.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Commissioner Jochman, no disclosures. Commissioner Williams read and reviewed material and submitted comments.

Commissioner Delviar read and received materials and I'm familiar with the site.

Okay, Madam Clerk, public comment, please.

We did receive correspondence for this item that were forwarded to the commission and entered into the record, but I do not have any request to speak for them in person and we don't have anyone online with their hand raised.

Do we have any request to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, we will close public comment and go to questions from the commission. Commissioner Delviar.

Thank you. Ali, I think you can probably answer most of these. I'm just curious, because first off, it's an unusual site, and it is very hard to develop. And so I appreciate what you guys have tried to do here. I think it looks really good. And I think it's a good use of infill. But just curious about the emergency access, because I think it seems like it might dead end sort of at that far end. Or is the emergency access just the road that

Good question, Commissioner Delviar. Leah Picotti, for the record. So are we talking about the fire access that the applicant talked about there?

This question kind of came up before then. So basically, I can see where it is, and then it's on. Right. So I'm just kind of curious as to which way fire trucks and medical and other emergency vehicles might come down there.

So you're talking about if there was an emergency, which direction they would come from?

Well, can they come from because it looks like up on the right hand side, there's no access unless I'm just not looking at that correctly.

So there is access to both the front of the building and the back of the building. So in the cemetery there on the northern side, there is an access road. You can see the cars parked along the sorority houses right there. So they could access from there, but they could also access off of university as well.

That makes sense. Okay, I just couldn't quite tell where the sororities are. It looks like a dirt road, so I wasn't sure if they could...

So there's a dirt road that... There's a dirt road that kind of circles around the cemetery there. And it seemed to me, like when I was out there, that that is being used pretty heavily for those sorority houses along there, that there's a lot of... It's probably students who are parking back there. So it is fairly heavily used. And I think right now, as the applicant pointed out, it's a little bit dangerous for people walking. So development of this site and cleaning up that guardrail area is definitely gonna make this a safer location for those students as well.

Okay, I wasn't sure if that was public access or if that was part of the cemetery or if it's some sort of funky alley back there. it's a funky public access alley um just checking um and then the other question i had is and i get that it's walkable and i love that um i just was wondering because if these are mostly students which i anticipate are there is there room for like bike racks and and i know that this isn't anything that you would necessarily make as a condition but i'm just curious as to what that looks like

We do require bicycle parking per code, and it's probably going to be one per unit, I think, is what we require. And I believe the applicant has that already planned out. I think it's in the parking garage.

Okay, perfect. And then I had questions, but you already answered them about the parking reduction itself and the number of units that were allowable. So thank you very much.

Absolutely.

Commissioner McCoy.

Hi, thank you. Commissioner McCoy for the record. My questions tonight were based around density and parking. You've hit most of those, but I just want to walk through just a couple of these things just to make sure I understand because I saw the comments about density and I was doing the math. Could you identify the specific code that allows for this 60% density? reduction that gets us to the seven point whatever it is.

I think Mike's going to look that up for you right now.

And then that, just to be clear for the record, the reduction applies to the unit average unit square foot, not the building size. Because when I look at the project summary, it's 71, 10 of livable, which if you divide that by seven meets the density issue, it's 12,100 square feet building size, which would not meet that. So I just want to make sure that.

That is correct, and the section of code that would allow for it is section 18.04.1504, which is density bonus incentives for small units.

Okay. Thank you for that, staff. The next, I guess, issue for me is the parking. I had a few questions about where we were getting the parking, and it sounds like it there's a few things at play here. So I'm not sure from a finding standpoint which one I need to kind of hold onto. So let's just kind of talk through this and see if you can help fill in some of the holes for me. Are you saying this project only needs three and so as long as we find there's three, we move on? Okay, and how are you suggesting we find those three? There's five garage spaces, correct?

Yes, there's five onsite.

And then there's three offsite.

Yes, correct.

Are we needing to, when I look through the code, it looks like as a body, if we're going to substitute on street parking, then we need to approve that. But you're just mentioning the three as a bonus, by the way, just so you know it's there. Okay, so all we're really looking at then is the garage parking. There is five, we need three. That's kind of the extent of it. Okay, so then my final kind of piece on the garage component is that do we need to make sure that there are, maybe you're gonna make sure this on the back end, Anything about storage and ensuring that these are actually used for parking and having a deed restriction to that effect as required by code? Or is it again because there's five and not three, we're not worrying about this?

So generally, it's a good question. So generally, if I was looking at a subdivision where these are private garages, I would deed restrict it. I would require a deed restriction for that. But being that these spaces are essentially owned by the building, I would assume that if somebody started packing things in there, the property manager would say, hey, that's not allowed. So we wouldn't typically deed restrict on a multifamily project with an open parking garage.

And then you've already answered the issue about I think there's going to be on-site storage for bikes in addition to the five spots.

Correct.

Okay. All right. That's all I had. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Commissioner Jockman, I'll ask one question. It's about the fifth condition of approval. This question I want to ask is about whether or not it's necessary to have this condition in order to make all the applicable findings. First, I will ask, I guess, the applicant, the condition refers to a slope treatment and a written narrative associated with it. Do you have a plan for how you're going to treat the slope at that time? Is it rip-rap? Hydro seeding or something or what? Do you have a plan at this time?

Well, a civil engineer over at Minhart, they are putting together a plan for that. We haven't finalized it, but I know that because of the size of the site, they've expressed any concern beating the requirements prior to going to building permit.

Commissioner Jackman, I will say that they have different options that they can implement, whether it be riprap or landscaping, and that will be reviewed by not only planning, but our engineering staff as well prior to the issue of some of the building.

Thank you. Then my follow-up question is for staff. Is it necessary for the applicant to provide a written narrative since they will have to comply with code regardless for that slope? What's the logic behind requiring a written narrative for that?

So Leah Picotti, for the record, this is a bigger issue than just this project. We have seen an influx of projects come through lately where that slope treatment that they proposed did not make it to the final building permit review, and it wasn't included. So our goal here is to create this condition, add it to anything that requires slope treatment, so that when they submit their building permit, they submit that narrative with it, the planner who is reviewing it can look at that narrative, and then we say, yes, based on this narrative, they're doing it, because the problem is is that it's getting missed.

Okay. So it's effectively to ensure that they're consistent with their initial plan.

It's effective to make sure that when it comes under plan review that we are checking for all of those things.

It essentially flags it in our system. So when they come in for building permit, it's just a safety valve to make sure it doesn't get missed. Exactly.

Okay. Thank you. Nothing further.

Uh, commissioner Williams, I have one for the applicant. Hi, Commissioner Williams for the record. Is there anything you guys plan on doing with screening for those 10-foot block walls to make sure?

Are we talking about on the back end?

On the back end.

Yeah, so we have a retaining wall that will come up a little bit at the edge of the community and then run across the back. And we plan on adding a fencing on top of that there. So to one act as both a guardrail and also as just screening.

Okay, awesome. That's all I have. Everybody else? Any other questions?

Hearing none, we will move to deliberation. Commissioner Del Vier.

Commissioner Del Vier, I'm ready to make a motion unless other people have things to discuss.

Seeing nothing, please proceed.

Now I can't find them. Oh, thank you. This is Commissioner Delviere. In the case of LDC 2600061, based on compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and I can make all the findings. Commissioner Williams, I second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C2. We will now move to item C3. Item C3 is a staff report for possible action. This is case number LDC26-00080. This is 942 Ralston Street, major deviation. Ms. Picotti.

Thank you, Chair. Again, Leah Picotti for the record. Second application I'm presenting tonight is for this Ralston Street major deviation. So this particular site is located on Ralston between 9th and 10th. It's a small parcel of 0.16 acres currently developed with two single family homes. The major deviation request that you're looking at today is to reduce that required rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet so that they can split the lot right in between the two homes and So approval of this major deviation will allow for that parcel map to be approved. Key issues we looked at here were compatibility with surrounding uses. I think one of the most important things that we can talk about here is this zoning district. You can see the subject site outlined in blue there. It is multifamily, 14 units per acre. But that darker orange color that's pretty much dominant on the screen there is multifamily, 30 units per acre. And that pink that's just to the north is neighborhood commercial. So one of the important things to keep in mind here is that in neighborhood commercial and in MF 30, a 10 foot setback is required. It's only in that MF 14 zone that the 20 foot setback is required. So reduction of this setback will actually conform to all of the surrounding properties. Master plan land use designation is also multifamily neighborhood. Policies that support this are preservation of lot patterns and building orientation and setbacks, like I said, because even though they all have that multifamily neighborhood land use designation, the majority of the parcels around it are MF30. Here you can see the two existing homes. The one on the top is the home that faces Ralston, and the one on the bottom is the one that faces the alley. Both of these are fairly older homes from 1945 and 1991. There is currently 23.5 feet of separation between those two, so should this major deviation be approved, it's going to split the lot so that we have 13 feet of rear setback on one and about 10 feet of rear setback on the other. We do have condition four that requires a code-compliant driveway for the off-street parking requirement for the one on Ralston. So here you can see that proposed parcel map. You can see where the split would be kind of right down the middle. Again, we have 10 foot on one side, 13 on another. The NC parcel to the north and the MF30 parcel to the south would both be consistent with this split. Major deviation recommended findings are on the board. Staff was able to make all of those findings. The approval will again have no change to the existing built environment. The process is developed. It's just a matter of being able to split it. It facilitates individual ownership of existing homes. We can convert to single-family lots, which right now it's considered multi-family because there's two homes on it. And there's no issues that would be created from this that would be detrimental to the neighbors. That concludes my presentation. The recommended motion is on the board. I am available for questions, and I'm not sure who the applicant is.

Would the applicant like to speak at this time? You are not required to. Okay. Thank you. That concludes our presentation. We will now move to disclosures from the commission. I'll start over here this time. Commissioner Delviar.

Received and read materials.

Commissioner Williams, same. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Commissioner Gompiantini, read and reviewed materials.

Commissioner Valto, same disclosures.

That concludes disclosures. Madam Clerk, public comment.

We did receive correspondence for this item that were forwarded to the commission and entered into the record, but I do not have any request to speak forms and we do not have any attendees on Zoom.

Do we have any request to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, we will close public comments and move to questions from the commission. Commissioner McCoy, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair. This question will be for staff again. I'm just wondering if you could show, I don't know if you have any images up there or not, that can show us how Condition 4 is actually going to be implemented and whether or not there's any conflict with the WUNP standard for front area parking situations. I kinda see, it's almost like they're parking on the sidewalk now. I just don't, I can't visualize where this driveway parking space to resolve the parking requirement's gonna go. I'm hoping you can kinda help me see that visually.

Well, that's a great question, Commissioner Boye. Leah Picotti, for the record. I don't have a good image to show you here, but if you backed out on that, you can see that there are driveways on this property. We just have this... Sorry, on this street, we just have a large landscaped... Parkway here, which which we want but they will end up probably extending that existing driveway Onto the property that would be the easiest way to do it. However, that's something that's gonna have to come when they Apply for a development permit for that. So I don't I don't have a strict answer for it now and The applicant may have an idea of how he's going to do it, but that would be my assumption because we don't really want any more curb cuts than what we already have. And the proximity of that curb cut to the one next to it may be non-conforming.

Leah, I believe if you put up the exhibit of the parcel map, it shows the existing buildings and it'll help you kind of visualize. You can see that the existing home on the west, which is, you can see where a driveway could be extended into that lot legally away from the sidewalk itself.

Yeah. Great.

Thank you. Commissioner Jochman, so real quick for staff. You mentioned that the request that's before us effectively would be permitted by right and all of these other nearby properties that are zoned MF30, is that correct?

That is correct.

Just out of curiosity, how did this parcel get to be zoned that way or not be zoned when it was next to? Perhaps I missed it in the staff report.

I think that generally we weren't 100% sure, but the zoning in this particular area is a little bit complicated because it had the university overlay and had all these different pieces to it under our previous code. In 2021, when we did the code update, we did our very best to match what those previous ones were, and it just ended up being MF14.

Okay. Thank you. Hearing that it's permitted by right for all the neighbors, but not for this specific parcel, that answers my question. Thank you. Commissioner Williams, I'm happy to make a motion Okay, do we have any other questions? Commissioner Delvier.

Thank you. Yeah Commissioner Delvier. Yeah, just I just want to make sure I'm understanding so this is basically to Split the property with a fence or whatever and then anything that comes after that would need to come back for more permitting potentially if it's Like in the driveway or if they want to extend the building or whatever, anything like that. This is just simply to make it two different lots.

That is correct. So approval of this major deviation will reduce that setback to what it shows there on the board. So parcel one will have 13.49. If they deviate from that in some way, they're going to expand the back of the house or something like that. It would have to come forward for... an amendment to this or it would have to come forward in its own, or they could rezone the parcel to MF 30 and then they'd be allowed to have the 10 foot setback.

Got it. Perfect. Thank you so much.

Seeing no further questions, we'll move to the deliberation and entertain a motion should one be made.

I'm happy to make a motion. Commissioner Williams, in the case of LDC 26-00080942 Ralston Street, based on the compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the major deviations subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and I can make all the findings.

Commissioner Delviere, I second.

Commissioner Delviere, I second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C3. We will now move on to item C4. Ms. Picotti, would you like a break? I said I was going to ask you that question. Or do you want to roll?

We are 45 minutes in. I don't necessarily need a break if you don't need one.

You're putting it on me. Okay, we'll move. We're only at 40 minutes, so yeah, let's go. Item C4, this is a staff report for possible action. This is a recommendation to City Council. This is case number LDC26-00039, Ladera Properties Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. For this item, we will begin with Ms. Picotti.

All right, thank you. Our third application that I'm presenting this evening, this is for the Ladera Properties Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. On paper, this request looks a little complicated, so I'm hoping I can simplify it for everybody here tonight, but the applicant's here and he can explain some of what's going on also. So the project information that we're looking at tonight is for these two parcels located on the southern boundary of the city of Reno between old US 395 and the new 580. So we have 161.2 acre site, again, two parcels, and they're requesting a master plan amendment and a zoning map amendment, and that's what we're looking at here tonight. But concurrent with this, they also have an application in for an annexation on that southern parcel, which when this moves forward to the city council here in three weeks, they will also hear this application and the annexation application as well. So I do want to point out that right now, the northern property is within the city of Reno. The southern property is in unincorporated Washoe County, but it is in with our sphere of influence and our Truckee Meadows regional area. So we'll go through this one at a time. So request number one is the master plan amendment. And you can see on the left-hand side of your screen, the northern parcel has a master plan land use designation of industrial, and the southern parcel has a designation of unincorporated transition. So what they're proposing is on the right-hand side. They're going to keep that northern portion of the northern parcel industrial. They're going to add suburban mixed use along that pink area right there that fronts old U.S. Highway 395. And the majority of that southern parcel is going to be parks, greenways, and open space and preserved in perpetuity. So that suburban mixed-use designation is kind of our catch-all in our master plan. So there are a lot of conforming zoning districts to that. And unfortunately, we don't have a less intense land use designation that could be applied to something like neighborhood commercial zoning. So because of that, those allowed densities in that suburban mixed use, it's going to require a tier change from regional So from tier 2 to tier 1 so I kind of have my big white arrow they're showing where that suburban mixed-use area is So that'll end up being dark blue on the regional map if this all gets approved so the master plan amendment goes from here to City Council and And then from City Council, it'll go to Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission for a conformance review. And if they find it to be in conformance, it would then go to Regional Governing Board for an amendment to the tier map. So we're a long way from the end. All right, request number two is for a zoning map amendment. So again, on the left-hand side, we have that northern parcel that's in the gray is zoned industrial, and the southern parcel is zoned unincorporated transition, 40-acre minimum lot size. So on the right-hand side, you can see what they're proposing. They're proposing neighborhood commercial in that pink area that would overlay that suburban mixed-use land use designation and PGOS zoning on the rest of that parcel that would conform to the PGOS master plan land use designation. The remainder of that northern portion will remain industrial. That pretty much concludes my presentation. I am available for questions. We have the master plan amendment recommended findings. Basically, that SMU is that catch-all. It's a diverse mix of commercial and residential uses. Size, density, and mix of those all depend on location and character and available infrastructure and everything else. The activities and development compatible with surrounding, that neighborhood commercial is one of our least intense activities. mixed-use zones. It would allow for things like maybe a restaurant and some offices, things along those lines. So it's not going to allow for any kind of heavy industrial or anything like that. Also that PGOS is preserving those steep slopes and we really love that. There is existing infrastructure nearby. The applicant talked about it in his application and I have it in the staff report about where that infrastructure is currently located and how it can be brought down. Zoning map amendment findings, does it conform with state law? Yes, it protects resources, it ensures safety, supports orderly compatible development, and it aligns with the master plan, it aligns with the planned growth, the infrastructure compatibility, and resource protection. Recommended motion is on the board. I'm available for questions. The applicant also has a presentation. Thank you.

Yes, please state your name for the record.

Good to see all of you. For the record, Garrett Gordon. I don't think I've ever had a hearing with no one in the audience. I don't know what to do with myself, other than be quick. So master plan amendment, zoning map amendment before you. Annexation is referenced here, just in full disclosure. That's what we head to city council for. Let me not be redundant from what Leah said. So you can see here current zoning, there's two parcels, the industrial one and the GR. So I think an important point is the industrial parcel is being down zoned, right? A portion of it's going from industrial down to neighborhood commercial. And why is that? Because you can see here the slope map. The dashed white line is the billable area. So everything to my left to up toward 580 will stay open space. You can see there's already a storage unit there. We'll build right next to it. Not sure exactly what yet. There's no project yet. This is just a master plan amendment and zone change. But up on the narrow parcel up top there will be down zone, a portion of it from industrial to neighborhood commercial. You can see here... SMU from the master plan side, and there's pink all up and down this area, even some red. So there's general commercial, there's suburban mixed use, there's industrial for the whole ORMAT geothermal area. So it's certainly a hybrid area of master plan areas and zoning, and I would concur to you that it's compatible with the surrounding area. And here's a proposed zone, and you can see that neighborhood commercial node right there on old 395. Across the streets, neighborhood commercial. To the north is industrial. To the south is neighborhood commercial. So certainly it's compatible with the area. And I'll just close with... In your staff report, the NAB comments are included, and there was a very nice letter written by one NAB member who I won't read it for you, but she does say she supports the annexation and the plan. On the right-hand side here is Mr. Conway, who's the chair of the NAB, and he also says, I believe we should recommend that this moves forward. We held a neighborhood meeting. Not one person showed up. NAB, not one person showed up. Tonight, not one person showed up, so hopefully we can get an approval. Thank you. And with me is Eric Casey from Wood Rogers. He did show up and he's here for questions.

Disclosures from the commission. Commissioner Valto.

Commissioner Valto spoke with the applicant's representative.

Commissioner Gompiantini read and reviewed materials, spoke with the applicant's representative.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures. Commissioner Jocherman, a phone call with Mr. Garden applicant representative.

Commissioner Williams, read and reviewed material.

Commissioner Delviere, read and reviewed material, and I am familiar with the site.

We will now move to public comment. Madam Clerk.

We did receive public comment for this item that were forwarded to the commission and entered into the record, but we do not have any request to speak forms in person, and we do not have anyone online.

Any requests to speak in chambers? Seeing as though there are no one but the applicant team, we will close public comment and move to questions from the commission. Commissioner Delviere.

Thank you. I think this is probably for you, Leah. Thank you. I'm just trying to understand the process that we're going through with the annexation and then the two different things that are before us today that will go, their recommendations as well. So it's kind of three recommendations going to city council, but I'm just curious as to sort of how this process generally works because I would think maybe annexation would come first. I don't know.

So that's a good question, Leo Picotti, for the record. Okay. Annexations aren't heard by the Planning Commission. They go directly to the City Council, kind of the same as an abandonment. So you're not going to hear the annexation. That's going to go to Council. It goes under an ordinance, just like a zone change. So we'll have a first reading, and then at a subsequent meeting, we'll have an adoption.

Got it.

should everything's dependent on the other approvals. So we gotta get approvals on the master plan amendment, the zoning map amendment, the annexation, regional plan conformance, and the tier change. If all five of those happen, then this will be approved.

Got it, thank you. And then... So they're gonna hear the annexation, and if we recommend the master plan approval and the zone change, then all of that will then still move to another phase for the adoption of the annexation. But what we potentially recommend now, they can approve that, at the same time? Is that kind of their thought process?

It's complicated.

That's why I'm asking.

On July 22nd, there are four items that are going to go before the Planning Commission. And it's going to be the combination of everything. and then an ordinance introduction for the annexation, an ordinance introduction for the zoning map amendment, and a resolution for the master plan amendment. Then two weeks or so later, They're going to hear the ordinance adoption for the annexation, the ordinance adoption for the zoning map amendment. The resolution only goes one time to council. Then in the meantime, we'll schedule Truckee Meadows regional planning review. So then it will go to the planning commission there, the master plan amendment for regional conformance. Then it will move to the governing board for the tier change.

Perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And not that I don't think this is a good idea, but if we do not recommend this to city council, then I guess city council, it doesn't matter. They can still approve it. But if they didn't, and I'm not saying they won't, if they didn't approve it, then the annexation is a moot point at that point. Okay. I'm just trying to understand the process in my mind. Thank you. And then from what I understand, these two lots, the industrial and the UT40, well, basically kind of dumbing it down, like 50% will be PGOS and then 30% neighborhood commercial and then 20% industrial or so. Correct. I mean, it's a pretty slopey...

It is.

Yeah. So, I mean, they'll have to obviously come back again with potentially other concerns.

I mean, we could be looking at major site plan reviews for grading, hillside development, things like that. It just depends on what ends up coming forward. So you might see it again or you might not.

Perfect. Awesome. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

Mr. Williams, I got one for you, Leah. Okay. Was I reading it right that TMRPA flagged this for density in their first review?

They flagged it for the tier change in the second review.

In the second review.

In the second review. So they reviewed it the first time. They sent me a memo. I sent back, how do you feel about the tier change? And then we talked about the tier change. So the second memo has the tier change in it.

So you asked for it.

I just reminded them.

Can you just explain that? Did they express what their concern was and how you guys worked through that?

Yeah, I think initially my concern was that we're going to end up with an island of tier two, or tier one, surrounded by tier two. And I asked them, do you have any concern with creating that island? And they said, we don't have any concern if you don't have a concern. And I said, okay, sounds good.

Do you still have that concern?

I don't necessarily. I think it's appropriate use in this. And really, having that suburban mixed use land use designation that requires these tier changes is because of the potential density that a zoning district could allow there. So, for example, they could ask to go to mixed-use suburban or something like that that has unlimited densities, and that would also conform to the SMU. But I might have more concerns if it was something along those lines. But with neighborhood commercial, I mean, that's ideal for this location. As Garrett said, it's compatible. It's the same thing that's on the other side of the road. I mean, that is what we want in that location. So I do support the two.

Thanks. Awesome. Commissioner Williams, if I could just piggy on to that. The Clear Acre Commons project that this board approved recently essentially creates the same condition. Although they were requesting MS zoning with that, it does create the island effect, so to speak. So it's very similar.

All right. Awesome. Thanks for that.

Commissioner Jockman, so this is I think a pretty simple question. I don't believe I've ever seen an unincorporated transition item yet. The code states that this is intended to preserve properties that Washoe has planned for large lot residential development into Reno zoning district without modifying the plan density. What's the purpose in keeping the open space? Why not go all to SMU? in those contexts, it would seem, and it reads as in our code that it's a secondary use to preserve its rural state. So is there a logic to keeping the open space and not just going entirely to SMU with our code there?

Well, I think that if it went entirely to SMU, and it also had a zoning of neighborhood commercial, we may have some concerns about that SMU designation being all. on that property with those existing constraints. Why the applicant chose to do it, I can leave up to Garrett. But we think that that PGOS zoning is ideal for that and we do prefer to keep that SMU right there along the roadway where there is existing available infrastructure and all of that kind of stuff.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Seeing none, we will move to deliberation.

Commissioner Del Vier, I know that space well and I actually appreciate the public space there. I think it'd be really hard to build anything on there. I like what this looks like and I like the annexation component of it. Obviously, we don't have any say in that. I feel like this is a good use of that land right now so I can make all the findings.

Commissioner Valdo.

Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Delvia. I do like that PGOS is designated when it's currently zoned for UT. And I think on the zoning map amendment portion, if you look at the neighboring areas, you have already some neighborhood commercial just across the street, which tells me it's pretty compatible. So I can make the other findings, but those are some of the things that popped up into my head.

Hearing no further requests to speak, the commission will entertain a motion at this time.

Happy to make a motion. Just for clarity, we want two separate motions, is that correct?

I think we can do it under one. Perfect, that makes it easy.

In the matter of case number LDC26-00039, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend that the City Council approve the master plan and zoning map amendments subject to conformance review by the Regional Planning Commission, and I can make all the findings.

Commissioner Del Vier, I second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C4. We will now move on to item D on our agenda. This is business items. Mr. Raley, do we have anything on this item tonight?

No business items that I didn't already cover under general announcements.

Okay. We will move on to the Truckee Meadows regional planning liaison report. Uh, commissioner gonfiantini, would you like to give this report tonight?

Sure. Uh, our last meeting was June 25th. We saw three items on the agenda, a conformance review of the reimagined Reno master plan, a regional plan amendment for the clear acre commons application that Mike just mentioned, and then a project of regional significance for the lemon Valley, uh, Plaza application. All were approved. Um, The director mentioned that TMRPA is doing ongoing work in their data center engagement efforts. They have a few dates. August 5th is tentatively scheduled for a community conversation on the data center engagement. And then it is tentatively scheduled to go to the regional governing board with a report on those efforts of the agency. And that's all I have.

Thank you, Commissioner. We'll now go to item F, future agenda items. Back to you, Mr. Raley.

As I mentioned earlier, we are working, Angela and her team, to come back with a training on the 5th, and I think we will focus on the discussion based on discussion at the last meeting regarding findings and major deviations.

Thank you very much. Item G, public comment. Madam Clerk.

I do not have any public comment for this item. We do not have anyone online.

Seeing as there is nobody in chambers, we will close public comment. Can I get a motion to adjourn?

Commissioner McCoy, a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Williams, second. Motion and second.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. Meeting adjourned.