City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh.

Reno City Planning Commission meeting July 15th, 2026 at 6 p.m. We will start off with a Pledge of Allegiance, which I will lead. Okay, Madam Clerk, off to you for roll call.

Jacob Williams.

Here.

Sean McCoy.

Here.

Alex Velto. Here. Tina Gonfiantini. Here. We have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. Missing tonight are David Jockman, Manny Becerra, and Christina Delviar.

Great, thank you. And then right into you for 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 are attending 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 is... If the behavior continues we did receive correspondence for this item that were general in nature and not specific to any items on the seat on this agenda These were afforded to the Planning Commission have been entered into the record. Additionally, I do have a public comment form in person from Damien Cole Please state your name for the record you'll have three minutes

Is the overhead working? Oh, perfect. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. Good evening. My name is Damian Cole, for the record. I live in Ward 1. I have lived here for about 20 years now. So, as we all know, there has been a recent issue of the walkway between AT&T and Lake Street that's been gated and shut permanently at this point and that has raised a lot of concerns for people who are basically living in this area and use it for transportation. So The whole matter prompted me to do some investigating, and I did some deep digging about how this walkway even got made. It started in 1971. Bell, Nevada made its new equipment building there in 1971, and in 1972, the city with an agreement by the property owner at 180 East first Street built a walkway and flood wall that was meant for the public to use so it has been there for 54 years so if anything employed implied easement and probably an express even because it was the it was decided upon between the city council and the property owner so they are Gating that place off illegally, 1972 picture, it was designed by the same architect as the AT&T building, and he did it free of charge, and it cost about the equivalent of today's $407,000, which back at the time was about $50,000. So we need to get that open because the AT&T easement that was agreed to in 2000 has a two-year time clock If the city does not use that easement for the purpose of a public walkway, we lose it. The city loses it. So code enforcement and the city attorney have both been notified about this problem. Also, I found out additional information. I just want to kind of share this. This is from 1995. This came from a redevelopment agency report about the riverfront revitalization plan that came about After a series of public workshops with the city basically this shows the conceived finished Riverwalk, which continues all the way to 2nd Street At the point that wanted to use the Virginia and Truckee railroad bridge as a footbridge to open up that east side so that area there that has yet to be developed? Very important. And it's an unfinished project. We have an unfinished river walk that the city is still uncovering archaeological data from when the redevelopment agency went dormant around 2011 and 12. So there are other additional kill violations happening in that area. The biggest one is the auto museum. According...

Thank you, Damian.

Thank you. There's more.

Is there anyone else in person or online who would like to provide public comment under general public comment? Okay, seeing none, chair.

Okay. Seeing more than any on Zoom.

Or you can email it to me. I would also like to give this as a gift.

All right. None more in-house and none on Zoom. We will close public comment and go to approval of the agenda. Looking for a motion for the agenda to be approved for tonight.

Commissioner McCoy, I move to approve the agenda for July 15th, 2026.

Commissioner Bompi and Taney, I second. Second.

All right, great, we got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. All right, motion passes unanimously. Looking at item A5, approval of minutes for July 1st, 2026, looking for a motion.

Commissioner Gompiantini moved to approve minutes.

All right, we have a motion.

Commissioner McCoy, a second.

And a second. All those in favor of that? I motion passes unanimously. Uh, it looks like we're on item B staff amount announcements. Mr. Rayleigh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of quick announcements. The Ladera master plan amendment and zone change that was heard by the commission at the last meeting will be heard by city council next week on the 22nd. Um, also the North Hills town homes project, which this board recently approved was appealed. to the city council, and that will be heard on July 29th. And lastly, at our next meeting, Angela Foose and her team will be providing a training on findings.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Raley. That moves us to item C, which is a new item for us. Madam Clerk, would you mind explaining to the commission what you'd like out of us for this meeting and all meetings forward in regard to the consent agenda?

Sure thing, Chair. Thank you. So for the consent agenda, all consent items may be approved together with a single motion, be taken out of order, and or heard and discussed individually. Any items pulled from the consent agenda by... or a fellow commissioner or staff will be heard at the discretion of the presiding officer. So any commissioner can make a motion to approve all items on the consent agenda, and we will just approve all items listed.

Wonderful, thank you. So as far as the consent agenda goes, looks like we're just looking for a motion to approve consent agenda items C1 and C2.

Commissioner McCoy, I move to approve consent Agenda item C1 and C2.

Commissioner Fantini, I second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes unanimously. And just want to take a moment, thank staff for working on that consent agenda for us. I know it's been a long time coming. It puts us into item, looks like we're going to D, public hearings. We'll start D1. It's a staff report for possible action, recommendations to city council, case number LDC26-00082, one Micah Place zoning map amendment.

Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. Jeff Foster, Associate Planner for the record. This first item, LDC 26-82, the one mica place zoning map amendment. The project site is comprised of two parcels totaling approximately 14.92 acres. These parcels are currently undeveloped, and they are located on the north side of Moraine Way, about 160 feet west of North Virginia Street. The request before you is a zone change from general commercial, or GC, to multifamily residential, 21 units per acre, or MF21. And this is related to a separate tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit, and major deviation application, LDC 26-84, which you will be hearing next. Zooming in, we can see that the surrounding land uses include multifamily to the north, south, and west, and public right-of-way and undeveloped land to the east. The key issue that staff analyzed is compatibility with the proposed, sorry, compatibility of the proposed zoning with the surrounding zoning and development. The current zoning is again general commercial. This zoning does conform with the underlying master plan designation. However, a corresponding request has been made for development of the property with 74 detached and attached single family homes. The existing GC zone does not allow for the proposed detached single family homes, while the proposed MF21 zone allows for both single family detached and attached product types. Subsequent residential development will provide for compatible density just outside of the McCarran Boulevard ring road and opportunities for transit commutes. The proposed zone change will provide a directly compatible land use and greater flexibility in developing the site as residential units typically offer greater adaptability to sloped land than does commercial development. The adjoining MF30 zone neighborhood to the west is predominantly comprised of smaller multifamily properties containing four to eight units per lot. The adjacent MF30 and MF21 zoned parcels to the north and south are developed with larger multifamily uses. Given the surrounding uses and multifamily zoning, the proposed zone change to MF21 is considered to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding zoning and development pattern. The master plan land use is suburban mixed use and here are 10 goals and policies that are in support of the proposed request. General commercial zoning is intended to accommodate a mix of established low intensity auto oriented uses while the supporting gradual transition of the city's suburban corridors to a mix of higher density residential, retail, commercial, and other employment and service-oriented uses. In contrast, the MF21 district is intended to accommodate multifamily residential development, as well as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and single-family residential uses. As you can see on the screen, the development standards are more restrictive for MF21. Essentially, the proposed request is a downzoning that is more compatible with the adjacent land uses and site topography. Here are the recommended findings for a zoning map amendment, and staff can make all recommended findings. Here's the recommended motion. I'm available for questions, and the applicant's representative is here and will now be making a presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Foster.

Good evening, for the record, Dave Snellgrove. I'm planning manager with Bowman Consulting Group. Jeff did a great job in covering this. The zone changes, there's not a whole lot of difference that I can put into a presentation, so a lot of my slides are very duplicated. I won't go through the slides. I know you have a heavy agenda tonight. But with that, I would like to point out one of the points that Jeff made, and I'd like to reiterate it, is how important it is. The reason that the GC didn't work for us is it did not allow for single family detached. And you'll see in the next case with the tentative map, we have single family attached housing and single family detached housing. So that was probably the biggest component. We went with MF21, the closest adjacent residential zoning to us is MF30. We could have easily asked for MF30 and we felt that would have been just as justified. We really needed the client on this and the applicant really needed to try and get to about 75 units was their target and goal and The mf-21 got us to that level. We didn't need to go to the mf-30.

So with that I'll close my Comments and be available for any questions Thank you, sir All right that moves us into disclosures we'll start in house no disclosures Commissioner Williams read and reviewed material and familiar with the site and Go online to Commissioner Gonfantini.

Commissioner Gonfantini read and reviewed materials as well as had a phone call with the applicant's representative.

Pretty sure that was nothing to disclose. I'll fill in for him. All right. All right, that closes up disclosures. Puts us into public comment. Madam Clerk.

Yes, we do have at least two public comments in person. We're going to start with John Fisher.

Good evening, how are you doing? My name is John Fisher and I reside at 3505 Lodestar Lane, which is in the SF8 next to that. A couple comments that I had, I was reading through the proposal. By the way, very comprehensive. I saw near 551 average daily trips, which If you look at the traffic right now on Virginia going north or south during peak traffic periods, to get off of Tallis or Murray, neither one, it's nearly impossible. So I'd like to talk about at least look at putting a traffic light at one of those locations. Because when you add that much more daily traffic in there, I think you're going to be backed up on one of those streets where people just won't be able to get out. I know Reno just spent a lot of money repaving all of our streets, and so if there's gonna be construction equipment in there, I'd like to, in the recommended conditions of approval, maybe look at adding some language in there that the integrity of the streets that we just spent our tax dollars on are gonna be maintained, right? A lot of heavy equipment's gonna be in there, and I understand that. Something else that is gonna be a problem on Moraine, even though I go down there once or twice, usually a week, but if you're parking along the street on Moraine, the construction equipment, if anybody parks that stuff on the weekends, like sometimes they do, if it's not on the lot, that's a problem because there's a blind corner right there, and if you come down that street, especially at night, you may not be able to see that kind of stuff. I'm actually surprised they're building on that lot because it's essentially solid granite, but it's not my project. And so that was about all I had. Yeah, that was it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

All right. Next up we have Tom Tabor.

Tom Tabor, 3560 Lodestar Lane. There are a number of questions that I have, but referring to multiple family residential lots, and you've got a change so that there are condos, I believe, or something similar to that. My question comes to if that's going to be multifamily residential. And I presume that that means that the condos or other areas like that where you have multiple residents, that individual units would be utilized by individual families, some form of familial connection. And the independent ones are the... Non-attached would be single families that are, again, familiar. And the reason I mention that is already in our area, which is from Gypsum up, is that single family residential units have been constantly being moved into multiple family units. units, and we have a tremendous problem with on-street parking. And as you may know, Moraine and Tallis during the winter, there's a lot of cars that are packed up on North Virginia because they can't make it up the hill. And there's a number of times that we have a lot of fender benders. So having people be able to park between Gypsum and North Virginia on Moraine, I would prefer that we find some way to make sure that doesn't happen because of the blind curve that's there and the propensity for adverse weather in the winter. On Tallis from North Virginia all the way up to Gypsum, it's usually pretty well tied up already with people who are parking on street because the three apartment complexes there do not have sufficient parking within the complexes. And so... Okay, I want to see this property taken care of because we've been there for almost 50 years and it's a constant visit with you folks and with the with the With the folks who were finally making the decision or And they're quite frankly tired let's get something there that's going to take care of the people and As well as taking care of the people who are developing it.

Thank you, Mr. Tabor.

With that, I do not have any additional public comment registered in person or online for this item.

All right. Thank you. We'll close public comment and go into questions from the commission.

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy, I think there's a couple of time to time we hear comments about kind of some concerns about consequences that a project might have that really aren't related to what we're looking at as planning commissioners. We're reviewing the project for the findings and standards, and as citizens, you know that the realities are there may be some unintended consequences down the road. What are some options, and this is for staff, if people see that there are issues now and they anticipate there might be issues down the road with a potential need for a street light, parking type issues, where do we recommend these people reach out to? Is it just direct? I mean, what are we looking at?

So just to clarify, too, there's two items associated with this project. This is the zone change portion of it. So we're not looking with this particular agenda item at a specific project. That will come with the following item. But once the project is developed, if there are issues, we would direct people to Reno Direct. And that would, you know, for example, if it's a traffic signal issue, if that's the concern, that would be routed to our engineering and public works divisions to evaluate that. Same thing as, for example, if landscaping's not being maintained and whatnot, that would get routed to code enforcement. So there are mechanisms once the project's in place if issues arise. All right, thank you. No more questions.

All right, thanks, Commissioner McCoy. Any questions online?

No questions.

No question.

All right, thank you. I have one for staff. Just to reiterate what Mr. Raley was saying, the more appropriate time for the questions regarding the traffic and new light, street damage, and those types of conditions would be for the next item if we were to discuss the impacts of that.

Correct, yeah, so Jeff Foster, Associate Planner. So yeah, as a zone change, we can't condition it. I think the critical things that you look at in a zone change are the compatibility of the proposed zoning with the surrounding land uses and zoning, which we analyzed it in depth. And then the potential development uses that could be developed under the proposed zoning. And again, the compatibility of those potential uses. Because even though right now you've got a proposal, or you will be hearing a proposal for 74 detached and attached single family homes, that doesn't mean that that's what ends up being built if the zoning is changed to MF21 from general commercial. The key here, though, would be understanding that the MF21 zone is perhaps more compatible than the existing general commercial zone because of the surrounding residential uses, multifamily uses, and because of the topography of that site being more conducive to residential development versus general commercial development.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Foster. That's all I have. Do we have any more questions? All right, hearing none, we'll close questions from the commission and move on to deliberations. If there are no deliberations, we'll always entertain a motion.

I'm ready to make a motion, Chair.

All right. Commissioner McCoy, go ahead.

All right. In the matter of case LDC26-00082, based upon compliance with applicable findings, I move to recommend that City Council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance.

Commissioner Confiancini, I second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

All right, with four ayes, we got a unanimous decision to approve. That closes item D1. We'll move on to item D2, staff report for possible action, case number LDC2600. one microplaced tentative map, CUP, and major deviation. Mr. Foster.

Okay, again, Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record, bringing you LDC 26-84 related to the case we just served. So we've already talked about where this project is located and how big it is. The requests, again, before you are a tentative subdivision map for a 74-lot subdivision broken down between 48 single-family attached or townhome lots. and 26 single family detached lots. A conditional use permit to allow a subdivision with more than 20 and less than 100 attached single family units in the MF21 zone. Hillside development and grading resulting in cuts greater than 20 feet and fills greater than 10 feet. And lastly, a major deviation to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 feet to eight feet for the town homes. Procedurally, normally the proposed 48-unit project component would require a minor conditional use permit. However, in this case, the MUP was upgraded to a full conditional use permit since it is tied to the tentative map, thereby allowing the Planning Commission to review both simultaneously. The project proposes hillside development and cuts greater than 20 feet and fills greater than 10 feet, which normally require a major site plan review. However, in this case, everything was upgraded or elevated to a full conditional use permit. Again, zooming in, you have the four-story apartments and condominiums to the north. You have two-story apartments to the west, two-story apartments to the south across Moraine Way, and the undeveloped property to the east across North Virginia. The key issues that staff analyzed are compatibility with surrounding uses, project design, hillside development and grading, traffic access and circulation, and utilities and public services. Again, the existing zoning is general commercial. You just heard and recommended approval on LDC 26-82 to change the zoning from GC to MF21. Recognize that this application adheres to the mf-21 zoning standards and is contingent upon the adoption of the zoning map amendment Should the council decide not to adopt the zoning map amendment to mf-21? The application will no longer be valid as the project does not meet the current GC standards and staff is including that as condition number six and The master plan land use is suburban mixed use, and on the screen are 18 goals and policies from the master plan that are in support of the proposed request. Turning to compatibility with surrounding land uses, the adjoining MF30 zone neighborhood to the west is predominantly comprised of smaller multifamily properties containing four to eight units per lot, an example of which is shown in the lower left-hand corner. The adjacent MF30 and MF21 zone parcels to the north and south are developed with larger multifamily uses, such as those shown here. The proposed development pattern and unit types are generally consistent and compatible with these surrounding residential uses. Also note that the properties within walking and cycling distance of UNR and downtown, staff is including recommended recommended condition number seven restricting construction hours and in reference to the solid granite that this property is is Comprised of staff is also recommending condition number eight that limits potential blasting operations given all of the above the proposed use is generally compatible with the existing land uses in the area and Turning to project design, the project includes 48 zero-lot line townhomes and 26 detached single-family lots. The townhomes are proposed on the flattest portion of the site or plateau, and that's in the area shown here. The detached single-family homes are located in an area where slopes generally fall between 15 and 30%, and that's in the blue rectangle there. These homes propose hillside adaptive architecture to appropriately work with the on-site grades. Regarding parking, 148 parking spaces are required for these 74 units. Please recognize that the project includes 296 spaces within two car garages and two car driveways for each home and an additional 61 common area and on-street parking spaces for the equivalent of almost five spaces per residential lot. Continuing with project design, the townhomes will consist of predominantly five-plex buildings such as the one to the left here. Some townhome buildings are proposed with stepped or hillside adaptive architecture, and these range between about 1,500 and a little over 1,900 square feet each. Uh, there are living area overhangs that are cantilevered over the ground floor level into the front side and rear yard areas, uh, including a five foot overhang above the garage shown here and a two foot overhang that encroaches into the 10 foot rear yard setback shown here. This two foot living area overhang, um, is above the back door of the town homes and it will not be materially different than a small patio cover element. This encroachment of the upstairs living area which effectively increases the available living area without reducing the actual rear yard is the subject of the major deviation. And lastly, you have the detached single family homes that range from about 1,860 square feet up to about 2,640 square feet. Continuing with the project design. The project includes low maintenance and low water usage plannings that will be incorporated into the landscape treatment per condition number nine. There are two common and recreational areas shown on the screen here. Final amenities may include a pickleball court, picnic area with tables, lawn areas for small field games or play, and or a dog park. And there is also a small community building in the eastern common area shown here. And also, all of the landscape common areas will be maintained by the HOA per condition number 10. Regarding hillside development and grading, the required open space calculation shows that about 8.26 acres of open space must be provided. RMC requires additional open space for development on natural slope areas that are greater than 30%. of which there are about 0.28 acres that are on steeper slopes that are proposed for development. Therefore, an additional approximately 0.56 acres of open space is required bringing the total open space area requirement to about 8.82 acres. The proposed site plan shows about 8.7 acres of open space and therefore staff is including condition number 13 to reconcile that. Also, the max depth of cuts is about 34 feet and the max depth of fills is about 51 feet. Turning to traffic access and circulation, RMC requires a traffic entry and access study if a proposed development is anticipated to generate more than 100 peak hour trips, or a full traffic impact analysis if the project would generate more than 200 peak hour trips. The project's trip generation analysis identified that 551 average daily trips would be generated, including 41 a.m. peak hour and 48 p.m. peak hour trips, and this level of traffic does not trigger any traffic mitigation. Access will be provided from Moraine Way and Micah Place, and staff has determined that site circulation, emergency access, and pedestrian access are adequate. The nearest transit facilities are located adjacent to the site near the intersection of Moraine Way and North Virginia Street. And staff is recommending condition number 20 to require the RTC SmartTrips program information to be distributed to all of the homeowners. Lastly, regarding utilities and public services, no sewer capacity issues were identified. The nearest fire station is station 10, about one mile from the site, and that should be within the six minute response time. Police patrols should not be significantly impacted by this project. And the project is slated to be served by Elmcrest Elementary, Clayton Middle School, and McQueen High School. And the school district has indicated they do not anticipate any issues accommodating students generated by the project. Here are the recommended findings for a tentative subdivision map. Staff can make all of these recommended findings. Here are the CUP recommended findings, and again, staff can make these recommended findings. I also included the major site plan review recommended findings related to the grading and the hillside development, even though you are not considering a major site plan review tonight because it has been wrapped into the CUP. Nevertheless, it does have some different findings, and again, staff can make these recommended findings. And last but not least, the major deviation recommended findings, and again, staff can make these recommended findings. Here's a recommended motion. I'm available for questions, and I believe Mr. Snellgrove is going to be making a presentation.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Foster.

Good evening. Again, for the record, Dave Snellgrove, Planning Manager with Bowman Consulting Group. With me in the audience on this, this is more design oriented. We have Master Matt Sutherland, who is the project manager engineer with GCW Engineers. And also Bruce Fulmer is in the audience. He's representing the applicant relative to the real estate and online. And if you can promote Maggie Stringer. She's probably one of the logged in folks. She is with the applicant should there be any questions that she would need to answer. Jeff did a great job in covering Many things I think we've worked together so many times that I think we've got a ton of similarities in terms of the order and format. So I won't repeat anything that he's really covered in heavy detail, but I do want to go over certain elements. Jeff had a similar exhibit up. We actually have, I have this backwards. I had this backwards at the NAB meeting. We have 74 total lots. These will be subdivided lots. We're at 48 townhomes, not 46. I didn't get that correctly. We've got 28 detached single-family homes. Two different parts of the site that we're working with, and when we get into the slope analysis map, it makes more sense as to why we're putting the bigger, longer buildings of the townhomes where we have those and why we're working with the detached single-family where they are. The site will have two access points, one at Micah Place and one on Moraine Way. This will be a gated subdivision. What was mentioned, and Jeff was correct, we're just under five parking spaces per unit in total, which is substantially higher than the code requirement. I've been up to Gypsum and driven along Gypsum and Talbot. Yes, there is a significant parking impact that occurs up there on those streets. We will be... We're far enough away on Moraine. I guess if somebody was having a really big Super Bowl party or something like that, there might be a need for people to park on Moraine. But our distance to Moraine and going up the hill, and then the parking that we have provided within the subdivision, I think will accommodate parking very well for the site. We do have parking on both sides of the street within the single-family detached area. within the single-family attached area. We don't have parking on the street because you have a line of driveways, so there's really not a whole lot of room in those areas, but we have established, there's 36 common area parking pockets, and each home will have a two-car garage and a two-car driveway. Jeff pointed out the location of our amenity areas, so I had to kind of chuckle because he did it in about the same manner. Let's see, we went through parking. Yeah, covered all that. This is the slope analysis map, and the brighter green areas on the slope analysis map really show you zero to 15% areas, and you can see where we have the town homes on the northern part of the site, which is on the right-hand side of the map. That's a little bit more conducive to having some bigger buildings. This was one of the challenges for this site. In a general commercial, you'd tend to have some bigger buildings. Well, the site isn't necessarily that conducive to doing that. But this area up coming in off of MICA is actually a plateaued area that's been graded. We do have stepped architecture, and I'll go over that on another slide. And we do have some that go uphill and some go downhill. We have some that are flat to try and minimize the overall grading that we're doing on the site. When you get to the south end towards Moraine Way, that tends to be in the 15 to 30% slopes. by regional planning standards, city of Reno standards, that's considered to be developable, takes a little bit more care in working with those areas. The nice thing about the single-family detached is there are smaller footprints, and we can step those down the hill a little bit easier than we can do with a townhome product. This is a copy of the cut and fill map. The two areas that I have circled in yellow are the areas where we hit the highest cut. The red area is the cut area, and the fill area is in the purple. And the general areas that we have the deepest cut and fill are located approximately in those yellow circles. So I just wanted to point out, not the whole purple area is meeting that 51 feet of fill or 34 feet of cut on the cut area. It really builds up, and that's the deepest points for each of those. This goes back into the architecture. The town homes, you can see we've got an uphill model and a downhill model, and then we've also got a flat model. We tried to work with the site so that we're accommodating for the grades that are there that we have to work with. Really, the only part on that major deviation that's necessary for that major deviation is on the rear yard area, the two-foot overhang, and as Jeff mentioned, we talked quite a bit about this, that basically functions as a two-foot patio cover. Each yard will have a 10-foot rear yard, which going smaller than that gets pretty darn small. 10-foot rear yards on smaller lots is pretty standard. We do that all the time. But I felt uncomfortable going down to an 8-foot at grade rear yard. 10-foot gives you enough room for somebody. You have the dog out there. You can have patio table, things like that. These aren't intended to be big lots. They're intended to meet market prices and market conditions. On the single family, we've got the same considerations. We have some homes that are gonna be flat, the standard two-story, and then we've also got uphill and downhill stepped single family. None of these have the pop-outs, protrusions in the rear yard. None of the single family detached have the major deviation component to them. These are a couple of renderings. On the right-hand side is the single-family detached. On the left-hand side is the townhomes. Similar architectural feeling. They'll be in one community. We're not anticipating any gate between the two. We've got two separate amenity areas, one kind of serving the area for the single-family and one over closer to the multi-family, but I don't see that you can't use one or the other. If we have a dog park at one and you have a dog, you can go over to the dog park at that one. This went through a few approvals over time, and the one that I was able to get the most information on was the most recent one. This was from 2015. I took a look at what some of the concerns were. This was appealed. It was called Southern Edge, and it went on to City Council. I took a look. At the appeal information, we tried to appropriately address these things within our development. Were we able to address everything? No, probably not, but I think we've done a very good job. Water pressure, we did reach out to Tumwa to ask him about any water pressure in the neighborhood, and I believe that possibly Mr. Tabor, who spoke during the last meeting, under the zone change, and he might have been either a family member or the person that filed the appeal. So hopefully the water pressure's gotten better up there over time, but I know that was a concern. Came out, nope, we'll talk to Tamwa. Yeah, we will have to meet requirements for Tumwa meeting the pressure for this subdivision and also not only for domestic but also for for fire flow pressures in the neighborhood when talked to was Tim Simpson that Mr. Sutherland the engineer on the project top two and he said yeah, he was unaware of any pressure issues up in the area so we will be looking into that because we definitely want to be able to meet it with our subdivision. Erosion and stormwater runoff at the NAB, this came up the other night, because right now water kind of goes across the site and can sheet flow down. With the development of the subdivision, we do have a detention area that's down at the south eastern corner of the site and we will have to collect and and appropriately direct that storm water to appropriate places not just allowing it to run off so we will have some areas there's some slopes where if water hit it it would still go downhill but those areas become much much smaller over time and we have erosion control requirements that we'll need to meet impacts on adjacent properties on west gypsum We are separated with the single-family homes by probably plus or minus 100 or more feet. And then where we get closest to some of the homes on Gypsum is really on the townhome portion where we've got a 10-foot rear yard and we've got another probably 10 to 15 feet over towards the northern side of the map. It gets a little bit closer there. We feel that we've got some good separation. We're not grading right up adjacent to those existing lots or uses. So we feel that we've appropriately addressed that. Safe pedestrian bicycles. Through the research on this and we've come to learn NDOT has a project that'll be going on after the 395 freeway improvements are done that are blocking off the access on and off the freeway from 395 right now. And when those get done, and they're estimating it's probably 2028, which likely won't be too far off from where this gets built. And if you know the timeframes necessary to go through final engineering, get the approvals all in place, you know, we'll probably be in similar timeframe. But I understand that there is a multimodal transit lane or something that NDOT's working on that'll go all the way up to the Panther Valley connection between McCarran and Panther Valley. This is an area that needs some pedestrian access up and down, and that is in the plans and works. And NDOT has that planned out. Street parking on Gypsum, we talked about that earlier, will be gated. We've got ample parking. We don't foresee that people really need to park outside of the subdivision, thus increasing the impact on that. In common weather and icy roads, I understand that one. I've seen it on different slopes. I think that Moraine was... was about 8%. And I think Talbot might have been in the 6% or 7% slope. And, you know, our roads within our subdivision are generally south-facing. You get a couple shady parts on Moraine and Talbot that can hold ice a little bit longer. That really becomes more of a city road maintenance issue. Our streets within our subdivision won't be the responsibility of City of Reno. They will be private streets because they're gated. And then there was drug and alcohol. And we're not proposing student apartments. I think some of the past proposals have been the student apartment realm. We went to the NAB meeting two days ago in this very same room, and I told Jeff I'd put together a list of the comments, so we tried to capture all those. They were landscaping on slope. Where are the contractors going to park? There was a question on what the hillside ordinance density reduction factor is, so I explained that. Was it reviewed by NDOT, RTC? Yes, they both reviewed that. The drainage issue that came up in the last project and appeal, that came up, the 100-year storm event and the runoff from the site. There was a third point of access. There's another thing that looks like a road that's actually a lot. and the grading wouldn't work, and that goes out to gypsum. Generally, they felt positive about it. We had a couple commenters, and we had a public commenter that showed up, and he said that he liked it and was supportive. Won't bore you with all that unless there's something really big. I think we're good on the parking, and we are in agreement with staff's recommendation. We're in agreement with the conditions as presented. The group here that I mentioned at first were available should you have any questions. Because this is a tentative map and there's only four members here, this is my pandering part. I do need all four votes to move this forward. If three vote in favor and one votes against, technically by the rules of the city because there's three members missing, that would be a denial. I am asking... If you have any big concerns about this, you're getting close, if you can give me the heads up that you got some issues or questions, and I would like to look at a continuance to bring this back when we've got a full slate of planning commissioners here. But if we can do this tonight, I would greatly appreciate support by all of the planning commissioners that are present. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we're gonna move on to disclosures from the council.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Commissioner Williams, familiar with the location and read and reviewed all material. Online, Commissioner Gonfantini.

Commissioner Gonfantini, read and reviewed materials, and again, had a conversation with Mr. Sun Grove.

Commissioner Gantiner, disclosure.

Okay, from disclosures, Madam Clerk, public comment.

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

Okay. Nobody else for a public comment? All right. I'm going to close public comment and move on to questions from the commission. Mr. McCoy, would you start us off?

Thank you, Chair. I just had one quick clarification I'd like to make with staff on the record, if that's Okay with you, Jeff? Thanks for coming up. I just wanted to kind of clarify when I read through it, I saw the letter from NDOT that had specifically asked for expansion of the traffic study to include access management analysis, Moraine Way in Virginia. And I just wanted to clarify on the record that you've worked, engineering's worked with NDOT. They're okay with not doing that now, that we're not gonna require that, we're moving on. Is that correct? Is that your understanding?

That's my general understanding. However, Doug Buck, the engineering manager, can address that with more clarity. Okay. Thank you.

Good evening. Doug Buck, development review manager with development services. Yes, I spoke with Jeff, the traffic supervisor for NDOT. They did recommend a traffic study. Specific to end up, but it is outside their access management Purview and they just specifically informed me that he was fine leaving that Decision up to the city so staff looked at it with only 48 peak hour trips in the evening It's not warranted in our opinion or per our code Okay, thank you, that's all I had

All right, do we have any questions from the Commission online?

Commissioner Campantini, no questions?

Okay, seeing none from Alex Felto, I think I got a couple for you, Mr. Foster. Just wanted to clarify, the passage of this by City Council will, or not passage of this, will null and void this plan?

Correct if they do or do not pass this The so yeah, if if the zone change is not approved by council that Effectively negates this project this of course doesn't go on to council unless it's appealed Yes, you're the decision-making body on this request or these requests, but if the zone change is not approved then yes Okay

The utility services, condition 22 about the sewer. Looks like there's a disagreement with that. Can you explain this condition?

The conditions down in that part of the staff report are pretty standard. I'm not sure. Are they?

Okay. Yeah. I hadn't seen one about public and private sewer. in a while, but I can press off on that one. The only other thing was conditions that require geotechnical certification before occupancy, is that?

Hold on just a second, I'm having a little bit of a hard time hearing with the. The gentleman behind you. Okay, so I'm sorry, Commissioner Williams, please.

There's a, with the grading and cuts, there's something in there about the conditions require geotechnical certification. before occupancy?

Yeah. Yeah, that's a pretty standard. There's a prelim geotech report that's submitted with the application, but then we require a final geotechnical report with the eventual building permit process down the road.

Okay. And lastly, the parking.

The parking?

Parking. I've raised concerns before about some lack of parking. What would be the minimum this project would generally be allowed?

So the minimum is two spaces per unit. So with 74, that's 148, right? So 148 spaces are required. This project more than doubles that. OK.

Just wanted to make sure my math was right. Yep. Thank you.

Commissioner Williams, I can clarify condition number 22 is a standard condition. It's just if the private sewer is proposed, but if that were to become public, it would need to meet all City of Reno standards and all Apple Point easements and whatnot would have to be in place.

Gotcha. All right. Thank you, Mr. Whaley. Sorry, Mr. Foster, for throwing me off on that one. Okay. That's all the questions I had. Mr. Chair, if I could add something. Yeah.

I was talking to Mr. Tabor here, and he presented a lot of things that were design-oriented under item one, which was the zone change, and he thought he was putting it in to speak under one and two. He and I have exchanged cards. We will most certainly talk and meet, but if there's an opportunity for you to open back up the public comment, and I don't know if that'll go against any protocol, I would understand that, but at the same time, I think it would be good to hear from him. I think we'll hear a lot of things, and I think that we've addressed a lot of the things that he had concerns about previously.

I would say, how about I have most of those written down. Do you want to just address them directly?

Yeah, I jotted...

I jotted some things down as Mr. Fisher and Mr. Tabor. The streets maintained, and that's always a concern. You can bring heavy construction equipment in. I think there's a standard requirement. We can't leave these in worse shape than we have if we tear up the curb and gutter and the streets become much worse. I think you have to do repairs for those. I think that's kind of a standard condition. Construction equipment parking was one of them that came up. And I believe that Mr. Fisher may have mentioned that. Because of the way we have the site, we have the townhome portion, we have the single family portion. There's room on the site to do some initial grading and have staging area. And our hope, too, is that we can get construction traffic parking on site. on the site rather than on the streets. The nice part about it is during the daytime, you have lesser on-street parking on Gypsum or other streets around the area, so you get kind of a trade-off. They can use the parking during the day if we do have to park construction folks out there. There was parking on Moraine. I mentioned that during my presentation because we're far enough away, I don't think it's real logical that people park there, and we have provided substantially more parking than what code would have.

Tom, was there anything else that was a big concern?

Well, it's just the safety, particularly on North Virginia, with accelerating lanes going south because the traffic is supposed to be 45. It's 55 to 60, and it gets really loaded when there's a problem.

Yeah, that was one. I had heard that concern. There was a comment that was emailed in. It was basically traffic concerns at the intersection, and there was an emailed concern that came in, I think, to the planning commissioners, and the same message also came to Mr. Foster. I talked to our traffic engineer over at GCW, And Marissa told me that she just recently did a traffic signal warrant study on TELUS. And it sounded like it was in the last year or two. And that's where most of the apartments are. Because of NDOT standards and because of what they had to meet, that could not meet traffic signal warrants. And she said, I'd be really hard pressed because you have lesser traffic coming down Moraine, got much more density on the north. I don't see where this is going to meet warrants at Moraine, even with the addition of our project. So I had a brief conversation with Mr. Buck about that earlier today, too, to let him know what I've heard from Marissa.

Okay. I think that's all I had written down also. So thanks for the clarification. Do we have any more questions from the council? if not, we'll move on to council deliberations and Entertain a motion if somebody has one Chair Commissioner for the record I am ready to make a motion, but I'm also open if any other commissioners would like to have conversation Any commissioners online have any discussion?

Commissioner Gonfiantini, no questions and I'm ready for Mr. McCoy's motion.

All right, I'll get into it. In the matter of case LDC 26-00084, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the tentative map, conditional use permit, and major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Commissioner Gonfiantini, I second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. I hear a unanimous vote for that, so that passes. And thank you all for the direction on that. Puts us on to item D3. One second, two, D3. Staff report for possible action, case number LDC2600054, New Elementary School on Pine Middle School Campus. That's you. Yeah.

All right. Good evening, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Leah Picotti, and I'm an associate planner with the City of Reno Development Services. This evening, I am presenting five applications. So this will be the first one. This is for a new elementary school on the Pine Middle School campus. So here... In yellow there, you can see the existing Pine Middle School campus. It is on the southeastern corner of the intersection of Neal and Filbert. It is a 16-acre site, and the request before you today is for a new elementary school with an enrollment exceeding 400 students and non-residential development adjacent to a residentially zoned property. The subject site is currently located in the public facility zoning district, which is completely appropriate for a school. Key issues that we looked at here were site design, compatibility with surrounding uses and developments, mostly traffic access and circulation, and landscaping and screening. So to give you a little bit of background, the picture on your screen is the existing middle school that is there now. That middle school was constructed in 1976. The plan, which the applicant can get more into if you have questions, is that Pine Middle School and Southridge Elementary School will be closed. Smithridge Elementary School is located across the street from this school. And then Pine Middle School, will be replaced with a new elementary school that will serve the elementary school students, basically. So what you're looking at on your screen right now is the demolition plan. And the reason that I wanted to show this is to show where the existing footprint of that school is located in relation to the housing around it. So you can see there are apartment and condos, residential uses across Neal Road to the west of this property. And then there are adjacent single family residences to the east of the property. So again, what you see on your screen right now is the demolition plan. So this is the current school. I'm gonna move that forward and I'll put that in the corner. So this is the proposed new school. And I used the landscape plan here because I think it best illustrates where those proposed improvements are located and where they're not located. So for the most part, the school is going to be in a very similar location to where that existing school has been for the last, 50 years. Oh gosh, 50 years. And the only part of this project that's really going to be more impactful to those adjacent residential uses is this area right here, which is going to be a secondary pickup and drop off for parents. And because it's the Secondary drop off and it's just this loop over here. We did ask that the applicant provide a six foot CMU wall and five foot of landscaping along there just to mitigate any impact because as you can see on that demolition plan, nothing has existed in that location for the last 50 years. So again, we're looking at pre-kindergarten through fifth grade, approximately 830 students, which is around the same number that go to the two schools right now. This would be just over 100,000 square foot two-story building, and most of that landscaping in the fields that are out there are going to be maintained, so it is a large percent of landscaping. Traffic access and circulation was probably our top issue on this that we analyzed over and over and over. And I will point out, too, that long before the project came into planning's hands, the applicant, Washoe County School District, was working with our public works and our engineering departments to try to figure out how best to mitigate traffic in this location. And what they came up with was that parent pickup and drop-off is what's kind of in that purple-pink color. So it's going to be moved from the Philbert side over to the Neal Road side, but there will still be that secondary pickup and drop-off over on the north side. and then the school bus will drop off and pick up over there on that north side off of Filbert. So it will kind of delineate those two areas to reduce that traffic impact. They are gonna put a mid-block crosswalk on Neal to prevent left-hand traffic. I'm sorry, the raised center medium to prevent that left-hand traffic, and two raised mid-block crosswalks with those flashing beacons as well. And if you have more questions about traffic, I think we can bring somebody else up here to talk about it. This project did go through to the Ward 3 Neighborhood Advisory Board. Overall, the NAB members did appreciate the investment in the new elementary school. They wanted to make sure that adequate shade was provided on campus. They of course had safety concerns related to the nearby intersection and wanted to know if this was going to possibly require a traffic signal at that location, which it didn't. And they were very interested in the potential traffic control improvements, which I just showed you on the screen there. We did only receive one public comment, and they were concerned about relocating the primary pickup and drop off from the Filbert side to the Neal Road side. The applicant did reach out to them and explained kind of what the basis was for that change, and I didn't hear anything else from them. Conditional use permit findings. This is a pretty easy one. It's located in the public facilities zoning district It's an existing use and an existing neighborhood Schools are generally compatible with neighborhoods as they serve those neighborhood families this will have similar activity patterns to the schools that are already there and new schools always considered a community amenity and With that, that concludes my presentation. The recommended motion is on the board and the applicant is here with a presentation as well.

Thank you, Ms. Picotti.

Not as tall as her. Good evening, commissioners. Stacey Huggins, for the record, with Wood Rogers, on behalf of the Washoe County School District. Leah did a fantastic job presenting this project, and you're going to see some of my slides are the same, so I'm going to actually kind of breeze through some of these initial ones. I want to just point out on this one, showing the school site outlined in blue there, the existing school building is about 105,000 square feet. It is a two-story school. It has capacity currently for about 1,100 students. So I mention that because when we talk about the new school, it's slightly smaller, 103,000 square feet, still two stories, 38 feet tall. That's below the allowable building height in the public facility district. It is going to be used as an elementary school, again, to replace Smith Ridge. And this has been in the Washoe County School District Facility Modernization Plan. So this is not something that's been unexpected. It's been on the books for quite some time. The new school has an anticipated capacity of a little less than 700 students. The traffic study that was prepared assessed this project based on 700 students. When we submitted, we had anticipated up to possibly 850, which is why Leah's numbers had mentioned that. But the study, again, the traffic study assumed about 700 students. And then I want to just make a note and a plug for the school district who had quite a few community outreach and engagement meetings. So what you see here architecturally was really based on the community output or input that they got during those meetings. I attended at least one of them. They were well attended with a lot of good feedback from the community. So kudos to the school district for doing that. Just talking a little bit about the site details. Leah talked about the existing school building. It is being demolished, and the orientation of that building is going to turn, if you will. Right now, the main entrance into the school is off of Filbert, and with this demolition and rebuild, the main entrance will be off of Neal Road, as you see there where the primary parent drop-off area is there in the light blue along Neal. That orientation has shifted in order to separate bus loading and unloading areas from parent drop-off to provide safety for students coming and going, and we feel like orienting it towards Neal and separating it from the bus loading not only provides student protection, but also, again, keeps those vehicles from engaging in an unsafe manner. The project does include new playground area, as Leah mentioned. Again, a lot of that's driven by the community input during those meetings. There is no change proposed to those softball fields that are in the southeast corner of the project. The school district wants to maintain those and keep those open as they are today. You mentioned parking on some of the other projects. Parking required for this school is 39 spaces and we are proposing 93 spaces that would accommodate parents and also all the employees at the school district. So we've well exceeded that requirement. Landscaping and screening, again, Leah did a great job talking about this. Just a couple things to mention. The proposed project well exceeds the requirement. We have almost 34% of the site in landscaping, 200 trees minimum, and we've done our best to preserve and maintain. Some of the trees, right now we're looking at 13 of the trees. I apologize, I don't know how many trees exist there today. I mentioned the existing fields. The chain link fences that are along the east boundary and the south boundary will also remain, as well as some smaller internal fences for, again, student safety purposes. And then we mentioned the enhanced screening in the northeast corner. There you see the blue line up in the northeast corner. And then there's also another new six foot tall CMU wall down in the southwest corner. Again, and those are placed intentionally adjacent to where there is existing residential. So we're trying to mitigate and screen for noise or potential headlights. that might impact those areas by providing those six foot tall CMU walls there. Traffic and circulation, Leah touched on this as well. So we did do a traffic impact study. We looked at existing, or considered the existing school capacity as well as the proposed new school capacity. The study area included nine intersections and three vehicular access points, and they are color coded there to make it very easy. Neal Road there in the green, so we looked at those two entrances into that, again, primary parent pickup area. The orange is the school bus route for drop-off and pickup, and then the dark blue or purple is the new parent pickup area. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,580 T. That's pretty similar to what's there today, so we're not expecting a big difference in traffic with the new project. Leah touched on the mitigations that came out of the traffic study. I will just touch on them again. Really, the big improvement or the mitigation that came out of the study was an all-way stop control at the Filbert and Neal intersection. You can see that on the exhibit there. And then some pedestrian crossing improvements on Neal Road and then again at Filbert. And if you have specific questions about any of the traffic, the study or the mitigations, Garth Oxal is here from JUB who prepared the study and he can absolutely answer your questions. I kind of breezed through that in a hurry, but again, I think Leah did a great job. I'm happy to answer any questions. The school district is here if you have more specific questions about the project. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, that moves us into disclosures. Mr. McCoy. What?

Commissioner McCoy, notice closures.

Commissioner Williams, read and review the material and familiar with the site.

Commissioner Confiantini, read and review materials, brief text exchange with representation at Wood-Rogers.

Commissioner Valtteri, notice closure. All right. And that moves us on to public comment.

Thank you, Chair. I have one public comment in person from Nicholas Moss.

Hello, Council. I'm Nicholas Moss, 4641 Astor Drive. If you pull up the site plan, I'm right by the basketball court, I think. A couple of concerns. Right now, Pine Middle School has very bright lights that we have put blackout curtains on our bedroom. So nighttime lighting is a concern for the neighbors, especially the ones right along that fence. Just wondering if we could specify some sort of downward pointing, possibly LED lights that don't shine directly in the backyard. The other concern is just the height of the building. Don't know how tall the current pine middle school is it's pretty tall my guess is it's over the 38 feet and it's closer But if I could share just a picture on my phone This is the current view from my backyard and I don't care if you cover up the townhouses and most of the trees, but I'd really like to still see the mountains and just for my part of the record. I'm not opposed to this. I think this is a great idea. I've lived in this neighborhood my entire life. I've lived in this house since 2003. I went to Pine Middle School. My mother taught at Pine Middle School in Smith Ridge. This needs to happen. I'm not opposed to this happening. I just want what the neighborhood and this small community has become accustomed to, access to those softball fields, access to that large grass area. We love it. The new fencing that's there is workable. It's not nice, but it's workable. So I'm just here to ask that Please keep in mind what this neighborhood has had for so very long and incorporate that into what looks like will be a nice school.

Thank you, Mr. Moss.

With that, we do not have any additional public comment registered for this item.

All right. We will close public comment and move into questions from the commission.

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy, for the record, I had... just one kind of clarification I was kind of looking for. And after the presentation and staff report, I'm still looking for that clarification. And I'm not sure who best to answer because I feel like everyone's come up and provided a different enrollment number, 830, 865, 696. And so when I see one of the exhibits in the materials, it indicated that the analysis utilized 696, but the staff reports that there's gonna be 860 kids. I don't know if that's a significant issue for the project or not. The numbers may not even bear anything out, but I just thought for the record, it would at least be nice to know why we have those, for my purposes, why we have those different numbers listed and which one we're actually using to kind of analyze you know, generation drop off, the queuing, all those issues that we have with traffic. Thank you.

Hello, my name's Teresa Poulsen. I'm the director of design for the school district. To answer your question, the 865 is the really maximum capacity of the building itself. However, the usable capacity for us is a little bit different, and that's because of our special education programs. They are calculated at a reduced amount per classroom. So that's what gets us down to the actual usable capacity of the building. So it's really about our special ed. Each of our schools of course typically has a handful around five to six special education classes and that's what reduces that number. We did have the discussion with the city and our traffic impact study was decided, it was decided we'd use the 700 number or the 696 number. Does that help?

Thank you very much, Commissioner McCoy. That helps understand, because we had so many different numbers thrown out. It's nice to know that the study used the number based on what you expect to actually use as opposed to, okay. Thank you for that. And then I guess the last kind of question I'll have is just the project indicated that the fields are gonna remain. Does that also mean the lighting is gonna remain or is there gonna be any kind of change or update to that kind of nighttime lighting situation? Thank you.

Sorry, Commissioner, I was just making sure I had the right answers. Again, Stacey Huggins for the record. So there will be some new lights along Neal associated with the project. There will not be a change in the fields or how the fields function right now in terms of new lighting. But I think that the school district heard Mr. Moss' concerns and would be willing to put shields and refractors to make sure that any lights along that shared property line are directed down. so that the light isn't shining in their backyard, or at least reduced to not shining.

Okay, thank you very much. Does that satisfy your question? 100%, thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Mr. McCoy. Any questions online?

No questions.

Okay. Okay. no question great thank you uh all for me was just to um miss huckins one more time the i appreciate the school district hearing mr moss's concerns how how do you facilitate that do we need to do we need to go conditions is that just a handshake promise, what do you?

I'm happy to say on the record, sorry again, Stacey Huggins for the record, I'm happy to say on the record that the school district will commit to that, but if this commission feels more comfortable adding a condition that any new lights will, or existing lights, will include refractors and shields, if you want a condition, I think we'll accept it. Be okay with that? If you want to add it, maybe we can throw some language out and just make sure the school district agrees with the language.

Okay. Okay, and then height. Do you want to address the view?

Sure. I appreciate that. So the architect is here and has indicated that the existing school, again, it's a two-story school right now. It's proposed to be a two-story school. The current school is approximately 32 feet in height. The new school is approximately 35 feet, so it might be a little bit taller with some articulation. And again, that's sort of like up and down and up and down. I can't... guarantee protected views with the building. We're trying to keep it within an existing footprint, but we can do our best.

Inevitably, we're talking about a couple feet. Yes. Okay, all right, so nothing dramatic.

No, and again, well below the allowable building height for that zoning district.

Perfect, thanks, Stacey.

Sure.

Commissioner Williams, if I might add, the lighting that's on the building now was installed long before we had standards for lighting. Our current code restricts all fixtures must be shielded with cutoff fixtures, and we restrict any spillover at the property line. So I think those comments are largely addressed by current code standards.

Okay, wonderful. That's what you're just getting ready to tell us, Ms. Picotti? Wonderful.

Yes, I was going to stand up and say exactly the same thing.

Got it. Okay. I'm happy with that. Any more questions that we can move into deliberations?

Chair, Commissioner McCoy, I'm ready to make a motion unless there's an appetite for discussion. There always is.

Yeah, I would just say I think this is a big win for the community, and I'm always encouraged when the applicant is willing to make some pivots to entertain the residents around it, and that's what this thing is all about. So thank you for the school district and Stacey for that pivot there with the lighting, but fully supported. So if you'd like to, Mr. McCoy, go ahead.

All right, yes, thank you, Chair. Based upon compliance with applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Commissioner Confantini, I second.

Great, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of this? Aye. All right, unanimous that motion is approved and puts us on to item D4. Oh, and we're gonna take a five minute break and be back at 7.27. All right, thanks everyone for that five minute break. It's 7.27, we're gonna resume July 15th, Reno City Planning Commission meeting. We were just getting ready to start item D4. Recommendation to City Council, case number LDC2500065, Moose Ridge Zoning Map Amendment. Just a notice on this one. This is almost exactly like the first two topics we had. One is going to be a zoning map amendment. The second one is going to be based on the project itself. So if you have concerns about the project itself, not necessarily the zone, the second item would be the one that we would want you to come up and make public comment to. What's that? You're going to combine them. Okay. If we're going to combine them, then public comment is the time to come up and talk about the whole thing. Ms. Picotti.

Yes, thank you, Commissioner. Again, Leah Picotti for the record. So one of the reasons that, before I get too far into this, one of the reasons that I've combined them tonight is because this body, or a version of this body, heard this application for a zone change back a year ago, and we ended up continuing that because they wanted to see a plan for development. So tonight, I'm bringing forward that zoning map change. We've changed it a little bit. And we've got a plan for development now as well, which is why I'm presenting the two of these together, because I think that how the zoning is changing and how the property is being developed go hand in hand in this case. So... Can I make a comment on that?

Sorry, it's just... Not at this time.

No. Okay. So we're looking at a site that is up just kind of north of Somerset. We're looking at about 43 acres. The request is for a zoning map amendment, a tentative map amendment, and a major site plan review. So request number one for that zoning map amendment, what you see on the board before you is what was presented a year ago, and it was from SF3 to SF8. And Again, the Planning Commission at that time said, well, we'd like to understand a little bit more about what can be developed on this property and what the real actual densities are related to hillside development and everything else. So now the applicant has come forward with that tentative map and the major site plan review and 20 acres of parks, greenways, and open space on the northern portion of that parcel. So now they're looking at 42.43 acres of single family residential, three units per acre, to 22.43 acres of single family residential, eight units per acre, and 20 acres of parks, greenways, and open space. So request number two is for the tentative map. This is for a 46 unit single family detached subdivision. That is not what's in the staff report. What's in the staff report is 47 units, but there was a last minute change to the design and it was reduced to 46 units. So what's before you is actually 46 units, not 47 units. So we have that tentative map request, and then we have a major site plan review for everything you can have a major site plan review for. So we have grading resulting in cuts greater than 20 feet in depth and fills greater than 10 feet in depth. Grading within the Parks Greenway as an open space, which there's just a small sliver of Parks Greenway as an open space down on the very, very bottom. It is a separate parcel. It's not included in the zoning map change, but it is included in the tentative map because it is going to be graded for the roadway. And then we have hillside development and we have disturbance of a major drainage way. So I have the slope map up here because when we went to Planning Commission last time, they said they had a lot of questions about development. Well, how can this property be developed? How can we look at a zoning map amendment without understanding what can really be here? And at the time, the applicant and staff concurred that really because of the slopes on this property, any kind of development was going to be pretty restricted. So the concerns from Planning Commission last time and public comment were neighborhood compatibility of that SF8 zoning with the SF8 and the SF5 that's to the north and to the east. What were those hillside conditions? What were the density possibilities here? They didn't like the idea of rezoning the whole 42 acres without understanding what was really possible and then drainage on that site. So staff took a look at it this time and we looked at the overall site design and the lot layout, the compatibility with surrounding residential development and basically what the surrounding densities look like in comparison to what this would look like, protection of those natural resource including the slopes, the drainage ways and that PGOS area. So what we've come up with here is about nine acres of developable area. And if we go back to that slope map there, you can see pretty much this is the area down on green, in green, which is the least steep part of this property. So here you can see that tentative map there. We have approximately 33 acres of open space, which is fabulous. This will accommodate 46 single-family detached homes with average lot sizes of about 6,000 to about 7,300, which is very consistent with SF8 development and those surrounding subdivisions. All right, this is a lot of words on a screen here, but basically what I'm gonna say about this is that tentative maps have been approved on this property three times before. We had one back in 2005, one in 2008, and another one in 2021. Previous applicants and previous planners worked really hard to make sure that this was going to be a project that was going to protect the neighborhood, improve drainage, maintain those existing trails. There's some four by four trails up there. They wanted to make sure that those would be preserved and that people could still access this private property. And basically, Those conditions of approval have been vetted. They have been approved by planning commissions. They have been reviewed by applicants. They have been presented to the neighbors. So when I looked at the conditions of approval for this property, for this project, I said, well, all of this, resolves or mitigates those concerns. So basically, Condition 6 through Condition 19 are the same conditions that were placed on the previous approvals. Just to highlight a few of those things, we have concerns related to density and compatibility, but we have rockery walls and riprap and natural landscaping, things are gonna be back, filled with soil. We're going to have revegetation. That drainage way is going to be more controlled. Some of those old 4x4 roads that have caused mass erosion are either going to be preserved and brought up to current standards or they're going to be revegetated and blocked off, which is what we want. Because one of the main concerns that these neighborhoods to the south have said over and over and over is that we're experiencing flooding, we're experiencing mudslides, we're experiencing drainage issues. And development of this property in a smart way is going to resolve those concerns. with these conditions of approval. So again, regarding density and compatibility, we have open space buffers, we have natural grading, we have limits on disturbance. Regarding hillside grading, we're using slope stabilization, revegetation, erosion control. Open space is gonna be preserved. The Department of Wildlife is involved in any sort of wildlife mitigation. We have Truckee metal, trails, working with the applicant to make sure that those trails that exist connect to the other trails in the area and that they're still usable for people. We have trail alignment preservation, we have easements, we have coordination with those other agencies. This will get the water line brought over from the Tumwa facility. Regarding fire safety, we're gonna have the wildland urban interface landscaping. These houses will be sprinklered. They're gonna be made with fire resistant materials. So we've really gone through this project and the previous projects and said, what can we really do to raise the standard on this development? And that is what we've done here. Tentative map findings are on the board. Staff is able to make all those findings. The major site plan reviews are on the board and staff is able to make these findings. We have a same use and similar density to the south and east. All the services and utilities are available. Again, we have similar densities and uses down south and staff does not find that it's going to be materially detrimental and actually, It really should improve the public health safety and welfare in that area. Zoning map amendment, staff is able to make all the findings and does recommend approval. There are two motions involved in this. One is for the tentative map and the major site plan review, which will not move on to council. And then zoning will move on to council. There is a condition 20 that I added into there. that basically says that if the tentative map and the major site plan review are approved tonight, but council doesn't approve the zoning, then that voids out the tentative map. So we have that all in there. Motions are on the board. I'm available for questions, and the applicant also has a presentation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Excuse me. Derek Wilson on behalf of the property owner. So as usual, Leah has done a very thorough job, and I'll do my best to not repeat anything or waste anybody's time. So this is a schematic of our development plan, 20 acres to be zoned open space. And then the southern, the blue part, is the development area. That's where our subdivision will go. This is the formal request. Definitely Leah did a good job of outlining all this, so I won't read all this off to you. But the goal is the zone change and the 46 single-family homes. That's existing zoning, and this is proposed zoning. So you can see the big point here is that the request that we're making, the SF-8, is contiguous to existing SF-8. We're asking for a zone that's already present in the area. Master Plan supports this. There's no change to the Master Plan required. You can see from this picture the yellow line showing the subject parcel. That's the flat part of the site. We're developing the easily accessible flat part of the site. This is looking north from the end of Moose Ridge Drive. That's our layout. So Moose Ridge Drive will be extended into the site. The very southern edge of our site plan there, that's a section of existing Parks Greenway open space that we're crossing with the road. So we're only making that road crossing into that existing open space area. And I think Leah referenced that, but I can see how that might be a little confusing for people. Important elements here are... We're going to have streets with public parking, so access to existing trails will be maintained. People can drive up and park and use that open space above us, same way they are now. We have ample parking on the street, and then each unit has driveway and garage parking. Additionally, there has been concern from the neighborhood about flooding or what I would call informal grading, uncontrolled erosion in the area. That's just from, I think, from off-road use, from trail use. I'm not sure how that developed, but it obviously wasn't planned. It wasn't regulated. It was just people going at it. So we're going to stabilize that. We have no choice but to, if there's an existing problem, we'll fix that. So we're going to stabilize that area and reinforce it, provide engineered drainage, formalize the engineering that needs to be done there. Additionally, we're also working with the City of Reno and Tomah on this project. We have agreements in place with the City of Reno and with Tomah to provide a road access to the neighborhood to the east of us and allow them to install a water line in there. So we're adding a redundancy to the water system. That's a public benefit. It allows improved firefighting. It allows more stability of the water supply. So we're, to some degree, partnering with public entities on this project for the benefit of the greater area. So the major site plan review... I would just like to point out that that's a fairly common element of any project in hilly areas of Reno, the cuts and fills, hillside development, disturbance of a major drainageway. Those are certainly standard items for anything out in this side of town. So that's not really unique to this project. That's part of the planning process, and we're complying with those requirements. As I stated earlier, the goal is to allow our design to minimize grading on the steeper parts of the slopes or the more visible parts. So our project is both on the more accessible slopes and on the less visible ones. So we won't be extending our development far up on the hillside or up on ridge lines. So an overall summary from what the goals of the master plan, we're adding housing, we're We're adjacent to existing residential. Our zoning that we're requesting is compatible with the area. The tentative map does not maximize the unit count. We're well below the maximum potential there. Major infrastructure for the project is in place. Roads in the area are generously sized. They can easily handle this traffic. There's been questions from the neighborhood about traffic. The traffic numbers just don't show that. We don't trigger any traffic problems, and the projects are too small to trigger a major traffic study. I noted last time we were here that the roads serving that neighborhood are roughly the same pavement width as West Plum Lane, which handles, I'm gonna guess off the top of my head, 10 times the traffic. So roads, in my opinion, are fairly generous. And revisions and public outreach. We're here because we feel we've complied with Planning Commission's earlier request. We've provided a tentative map plan, and we've revised our zoning. So we hope that we have done our homework. We hope that we have done what was requested of us. We feel the project now meets the goals that were voiced to us last time we were here. And then earlier in the project, we did essentially a NAB meeting with Devin Reese. I walked the neighborhood and handed out printed descriptions of the project to both our immediate neighborhood and adjoining neighborhoods. And I responded to calls and emails and did my best to respond to calls this week, but somehow nobody left contact information with the city, so I didn't talk to anybody recently. but always happy to talk to neighbors and try to keep people informed. The only final point, as with the earlier tentative map tonight, we do need all four votes. So if somebody had a major problem with this, we would much prefer to take a continuance and come back and have a larger hearing with the full group at a later date if it came to that. But again, we feel this project's been well reviewed and amended, and we feel it's approvable as it is. So I'm available to talk more as needed. Thank you.

Thank you. Just a brief second. Even though they are combined, we are still going to take them separately. So as of this moment, we're going to purely address the zoning map amendment. for Moosa Ridge, and we'll start that with disclosures from the commission. Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures. Commissioner Williams, for members of the area, and written review material.

Commissioner Compiantini, no disclosures.

Commissioner Melton, no disclosures. Okay, moving on from disclosures, Madam Clerk, we're gonna open up public comment.

I do not have any request to speak forms for this zoning map amendment. Okay. Sir, do you want to speak under this item or under the tentative map? Because that's the second part of this. Whichever you choose to do.

Okay.

Okay. Doug Harlan, go ahead and go first. Please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

My name is Doug Harland. I'm at 2901 Moose Ridge Drive. Can I use this projector? Can it be reduced? Okay, good. So I worked up a spreadsheet showing the square footages of the lots on Moose Ridge Drive. My main concern here is that this is represented as being consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. And they're saying that these lots will be 6,000 to 7,000 square feet. Well, the smallest lot on Moose Ridge Drive is 7,485 square feet. The average is 9,036 for the whole street. For corner lots, the average is 9,682, and for interior lots, the average is 8,931. There are only four lots within the 7,000 square foot range, so nothing under 7,485. So this development is going to have lots 6,000 to 7,000 square feet. It's not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. So my assertion is that this is a high density infill project deep inside a neighborhood with larger average lot sizes. I also notice on the map that the acreage to the left of this development is also currently zoned SF3. So if this gets changed to SF8, What's to say that the next one over doesn't get changed to SF8? So we would have now, what, 50, 100 high-density lots back deep into this neighborhood. So that's my main point. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Harlan.

Thank you, Doug. Next is Stephen.

Hello, Steve Nibler. I have a little different recollection of the last meeting. It was not to come back with a fully developed site plan. What had been, I think, looked at was moving from R3 to R5. Commissioners were concerned about moving to R8 because it's not consistent with the neighborhood. I know they point to one section of R8 on Avenue Nolanda, which that property seems undevelopable. And at the end of the meeting I think it was agreed that they would come back with an r5 and Here we are again back with an r8 So it seems little I don't say it's dishonest But I was agreed at the end that they would come back with an r5 And here we are with an r8 which is is definitely not consistent with the neighborhood So that's all I have to say thank you

With that, I do not have any additional public comment registered for this item.

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. With that, we'll close public comment, and we'll go into comments from the commission. Would anybody like to start?

Thank you, Chair. Are we providing questions now on both items, or we're going to keep separate? Okay, because I just don't want to... I appreciate the intent of trying to combine to make it less confusing, but requiring public comment to be separated is I think might have the opposite impact. But in any event, I wasn't a part of the Planning Commission, whatever the last meeting was. I just want to clarify that whatever the agreement or understanding was with regard to this coming back, none of that was a binding requirement. This doesn't have to be SF8 or 5. There was nothing that, okay, all right. Just for my purposes, if promises are made, I just want to make sure I'm aware of that. I guess the one kind of clarification I was looking for, and I don't know if this is staff or the planner so I'll just ask it, is that the original analysis I think from Tumwa was I think based on maybe 27 units and they indicated no issue with water at that kind of service level. Now we're dealing with 46 unit proposal. Has Tumwa confirmed that the water service analysis remains valid or that they have any concerns about kind of increasing that?

Derek Wilson on behalf of the owner. Tumwa wants this project. They want their connection between the neighborhoods. So yes, we're working closely with them. Yeah, and they've they have reviewed the project and the current unit count and they're ready to serve it. Okay, thank you.

Ms. Picotti. I think this was my first meeting last year. Was it? Yeah, I'm starting to, yeah, I think so. I think you and I had a conversation after this one because I was concerned about the land use designation, the zoning map amendment to be an eight, which I think, even though it appears concurrent, right, with a current neighborhood, it does seem to go backwards as far as you look at the general plan, right, that we, reduced density the higher we go. And so I have this recollection that you provided me some sort of information on my first meeting that when we discussed how you as a planner took that all into consideration with eight and five and three, that it actually made a little bit more sense to me in my very naive first meeting. So if you recall any of that, or if you have had those discussions, would you mind touching on that as you look at it from the city side?

Yes, absolutely. And I was actually just trying to pull up the numbers. So Leah Picotti for the record. So when we're looking, there's two different things that we're looking at here. And we're looking at lot size and we're looking at density. Density and lot size are not the same things. So the SF8 zone allows for those six, 7,000 square foot lots. But when we're talking about density, we're looking at the whole 42 acres and how many homes are being built on it. So when we're looking at the project as a whole, we're looking at a density of just over one unit per acre. I mean, the density is minimal to say that this is a A compact development is a little bit out there. But anyways, but when we look at the developments to the south, that guests are also SF8, but they do have a larger average lot size of about 9,000 square feet. The density of that area, though, is actually closer with their parks, greenways, and open space designation is actually closer to about three units per acre. So if you're looking at density in terms of that, then this density is a much less dense than the ones below it, and therefore we can make those findings. And that really... supports a lot of the master plan findings, especially in these foothill areas. It's not that we're talking about that every property has to be an acre. We're talking about how many people are packed into these areas. So again, we're looking at 46 units on 43 acres.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you for that. Do we have, I'm done at the moment. Any commissioners online that have any questions? No questions. I don't see any hands raised, okay.

Commissioner Volta, no questions.

Thank you. Commissioner McCoy?

Thank you, Chair. No questions. Given the applicant's recognition of needing four votes, I just want to make sure that we're all ready to move forward or not, but I'm ready to make a motion if it could be put back up on the screen.

I'll ask one more about a fire road and water drainage capacity. Who wants to handle that? Okay. Come on up. Jason Gillis, tech engineering for the record. Hi, Mr. Gillis. Um, with the more specific comments, um, about drainage and mudflow, it, it looks like you guys' design responded with something around 170 ish percentage of what was required. You want to elaborate a little bit on that?

I'd be happy to. Um, In the lower portion of the property near where Moose Ridge ends, that drainage way qualifies as a major drainage way. Above that, it doesn't. So in that area, we've got, of course, our road that has to cross the drainage. We've got an oversized box culvert there channelizing the stream there. And then from that box culvert down to the property boundary, that area where that water has affected the residents and Moose Ridge Road. We've got the new roadway. We've got a berm. We've got a wall. We've got the channel built down in rock. So we've definitely gone above and beyond, I believe, in the design to take care of getting that water away from those residents. And it's important to note, this isn't a pristine design. virgin creek in the middle of nowhere right downhill from us it goes through culverts underneath city streets so this is more of the same development plan mimicking what has worked its way up the hill historically so i'm confident that when the project's said and done there won't be flooding from the creek going into moose ridge or those backyards okay great thank you

And then I just had one question about, um, the, the second access roadway for fire. You want to talk about that? Um, it says that you're in process. Um, I think the city requires that we have generally have to, unless the fire chief signs off on only one, where are we at with that?

And how to be clear that the project does stand alone without another roadway to the East, uh, fire chief, uh, Signed off on that with the hammerheads and the fire sprinklers and all that usual fire protection. However, there is a roadway that we are required to build to the east to allow for that tumble water line, tumble maintenance road. To that extent, we have gotten easements from the city arena through that property to facilitate Those Tumwa facilities, the developer has given up easements on his property already to Tumwa in favor of that water line. They're relocatable, so depending on final design, if it has to move 20 feet to not cut down a big chunk of the hill, then it'll move. However, we also have... committed, and I've talked to Tumwa about this quite a bit, to taking that roadway and expanding it to make it a true EVA road, where the fire trucks would be legally allowed to use it. There are a couple of interesting twists to that. There's a off-road vehicle parking area to our southeast that the public's allowed to park their trailers, take their side-by-side up the hill. that would cross that alignment. So we've been working on ways to allow them to cross the tumble road but not use it. Obviously we don't want them getting confused and driving right back into a subdivision. So I guess my long-winded point is we intend to make that a true EVA road.

Great, thank you. All right, any other questions from the commission? Seeing none, we'll move on to commission deliberations. If not, we'll entertain a motion. And just to clarify, we're motioning for just the tentative map. The zone change. Thank you. Zoning map amendment.

All right, Chair, Commissioner McCoy, for the record, in the matter of LDC 25-00065, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to recommend that City Council approve the zoning map amendment by ordinance.

Commissioner Gompantini, I second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. All right, hearing all four, unanimous approval. And we will just go, Mr. Ray, are we okay if we go to the second motion? Do we want to do comments for the second one? Okay, all right. We can move on to, if we're ready to, Moose Ridge Tentative Map Major Site Plan and Review.

All right, Chair, Commissioner McCoy, for the record again, in the matter of LDC 26-0002.

Chair, do we have to open public comment on this item as well, since we took them separately?

I'm gonna defer to legal for that. Yes?

Okay. Because I know we have at least one public comment before we move forward. That's okay.

So we're gonna go back. In the interest of item five, Moose Ridge, tentative map, major site plan review, we're going to open public comment and then we'll go to deliberation after that. Did you get with that?

Ma'am, just fill out one of those green cards for me when you're done, okay? Okay, thank you.

Just your name for the record, please.

My name is Barbara Neibler and I live on Foxtrail Drive And I just have to say the slide that was presented talked about contacting the people that live on Moose Ridge and also Granite Ridge area. Fox Trail Drive is right next to Moose Ridge. If you look at a map, If this new development comes into play, it will affect our street, and no one notified us or talked to us about it. But basically, when you come down that area, Foxtrail Drive all the way straight goes into a court. So your only options are to go three ways. Two of those three ways comes out onto Foxtrail Drive. So it will affect our traffic at our neighborhood. So I just wanted to point that out. Because if you statistically look at that, two out of three exits off of Foxtrail Drive could possibly increase our traffic on our street by 66%. And like I said, it was not mentioned that neighbors were talked to on Foxtrail Drive, and I just wanted to point that out. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

With that, I do not have any additional public comment registered for this item unless there's anyone in the audience who would like to make public comment.

Anybody else out there? It's a little unorthodox today, but just double checking.

Okay.

All right. We'll close public comment and go back to Commissioner deliberations and or a motion from Commissioner McCoy.

Okay. I have no deliberations. I don't see any. the other commissioners online, so I'm going to go ahead and make my motion. In the matter of LDC 26-00021, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the tentative map and major site plan review subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Commissioner Gompiantini, I second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. All right, unanimously approved. Thank you for working through that with us. Who's this on to? Item D6, staff report for possible action, case number LDC 2600077, Seawall A, outdoor storage.

Good evening, again. Members of the Commission, for the record, Leah Picotti. Here I am presenting an application for a warehouse and outdoor storage. This is a very unique situation, and I'll preface this by saying that the variance request was prompted by staff. We did tell them that they should request the variance. So we're looking at a 2.17 acre site located in just the spaghetti bowl, the east side of the spaghetti bowl. So you can see there you got I-80 to the north and you got 395 to the west. So the request before you is a conditional use permit for warehouse and distribution center and outdoor storage. And then we've got a variance request for waivers for outdoor screening, landscaping, parking area landscaping, street trees, minimum number of trees and shrubs, irrigation, and screening. So the site is located in the mixed-use urban zoning district. You do have the freeway to the north. You have industrial uses to both the east and the west. And to the south, you have a small mobile home park that has existed in that area for over 50 years. Key issues that we looked at are general code compliance and compatibility with surrounding developments, specifically that compatibility with that mobile home park. So to give you a little bit of background, what you see on the screen are some historic aerials, which I included a few more in the staff report, but this shows 2016 to now. This site was developed in 1958 and has a 10,000 square foot warehouse. It has historically been used as a truck terminal, which is kind of similar to warehouse and distribution uses. You can see that the site has always had semi-trucks and storage containers and really has a history of that outdoor storage truck terminal type use. So because the site was developed in 1958, we have longstanding nonconformities. It pretty much doesn't conform to anything in code right now. But specifically, there's loading in the right of way, there are truck maneuvering that wouldn't have been approved today, there's no sidewalks around the site, and there's no landscaping. So we recommended that the applicant request a variance on the basis that we found out in another project that the area on your screen highlighted in yellow there is identified by NDOT for possible acquisition within the next 10 years, which means that this could just all become eminent domain and part of the next freeway project. So we did reach out to NDOT and said, you know, how realistic is this? And they said, well, this is a two-phase project. Phase one is already happening and phase two is in the design period. So they couldn't give us a definitive answer on if this property will be affected because they don't have final design yet. But what they can say is that most likely this whole area is up for acquisition. So the basis for this variance is that any improvements that this applicant makes are not going to be long term, will likely not be long term. And to bring this property into compliance would really require like a demolition and a redesign of pretty much the whole entire site. So the existing configuration really makes strict compliance infeasible. And that is exactly the purpose of our variance process right there. Does it make it infeasible for the property owner Is it really appropriate? so this variance does support an efficient safe and compatible reuse of a long-term industrial property and What I appreciate the most is that the improvements that they are proposing increased conformance with Reno municipal code So any existing non-conformities are going to be decreased. I give you a site plan overview here. You can kind of see the whole site here. That mobile home park is to the south, freeways to the north. We have industrial uses on both the east and the west side. That dark gray area highlighted is the proposed outdoor storage area. It is located over 300 feet from that mobile home park, and it's going to be delineated by a block, ecology block wall, which are kind of those big blocks that sort of fit together. We appreciate that because it delineates that outdoor storage area so it can't fill in toward the mobile home park. So we think that that's a pretty good thing. Now if I zoom in a little bit here onto the southern portion of that site, there are a few other things that were non-conforming that we asked that the applicants mitigate. So one of them was parking relocation. So originally, all of the parking areas were just down on the south portion of this property, and they were kind of... Let's just say that you might just pull forward and drive off the curb in this location. So the applicant is proposing to relocate that existing parking area behind the gate onto the east side. So they're moving the parking away from the mobile home park. They're installing a new ADA ramp and handrail, which you can see there. And they're gonna do a little bit of landscape buffering right there in front. The other thing that I don't have on here but has happened in the last few days is that we have asked them to do a sidewalk along this frontage so it will improve pedestrian access through here because there actually are a lot of people who walk down this street. So here's kind of a summed up table here of the variance requests and this is what's required and why staff is either supporting it or not supporting it. So screening and wall requirements, outdoor storage requires a 10 foot wide landscape buffer and 10 foot tall solid screening wall. This outdoor storage is adjacent to the freeway. It's been outdoor storage for semi trucks for years and years and years and years. So building a 10 foot wall and requiring 10 feet of landscaping is not only not necessary, but it's not consistent with the existing streetscape in that area. So staff is supporting that. Minimum landscape area required is 5% for this property. They are coming in very close to that. It's just shy of 5%, and it's really because they don't have a lot of area to landscape in this property, again, without doing major demolition. So staff is supporting that. Parking area landscaping. Per code, we require curbs and trees for every 12 spaces, and it all has to be pretty and delineated with sidewalks. It doesn't really make sense to have them do that inside of their gate. So we are happy with the fact that they have relocated that parking to the eastern side of the property, and... We are recommending approval for that variance. Street trees and minimum planting quantities. This code requires street trees every 30 feet along the right of way. And then for every area that's required to be landscaped, we want one tree and six shrubs for every 300 square feet. Again, it just doesn't make sense in this. It's not consistent with surrounding development. And again, any landscaping may be temporary. So staff is supporting this. Lastly, it's irrigation. Irrigation is required for any landscaping, even though there's a very small amount of landscaping proposed here. Not having irrigation could result in possible plant loss, which in turn would result in diminished screening. So this is the only one of these that staff is not recommending approval of. The applicant did go to the Ward 1 Neighborhood Advisory Board. I have not received any comments from them yet, and we have not received any public comment, so I think we're, the public does not seem to be too interested in the project. Conditional use permit findings. The mixed-use urban district is intended for this type of use. These are existing uses, and improvements will decrease that existing non-conformance. Again, we have an existing building. All services and utilities are existing. We have existing industrial uses with similar activity patterns, and the proposed improvements will increase that compatibility. And staff does not find that this is gonna be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare. The added screening, the moved parking area, and the addition of a sidewalk are actually going to improve those things. The variance findings are kind of important here because there are four things that the Planning Commission has to find in order to approve this. And it's that the variance is characterized by an extraordinary or exceptional situation. Possible in-dot acquisition is definitely in that category. Strict application would result in exceptional practical difficulties too, or exceptional or undue hardships for the property owner. Demoing the entire property and reconfiguring it would definitely be a practical difficulty. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental. As I said before, these proposed improvements are going to enhance safety and welfare. That sidewalk's gonna be great. The screening, the landscaping, it's all going to improve it. And is it consistent with the intent and purpose of the title? Yes, it promotes public health, safety, and welfare through balanced land use regulation that supports compatibility, environmental quality, neighborhood character, and infrastructure readiness. And those are all quotes right out of that. Article 2 purpose. With that, the recommended motion is on the board. I am available for questions, and the applicant is here also, I think.

Yes. All right. Thanks, Ms. Riccardi. Is the applicant going to have a presentation, or are you just here for questions? Okay. Great. Thank you. That will move us on to disclosures. Mr. McCoy. Commissioner.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

All right. Commissioner Williams, no disclosures also.

Commissioner Confiantini, no disclosures. No disclosures.

Commissioner Beltran, no disclosure.

All right. With the disclosures being wrapped up, Madam Clerk, public comment.

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

All right. Thank you for that. We'll move right into commission questions.

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy, for the record, I... I'm looking at the kind of findings we're looking for this variance and, and I'm, I'm, I met all of them. I'm questioning, uh, the first one. Um, and it's, it's this extraordinary exceptional situation. The language on the, um, kind of graph that was up there. I'm looking at the screen like there's something there and there isn't. It's the word possible. And maybe this is common, this is routine, so this might be more of a question for legal. We're gonna find that based on the possibility of an NDOT acquisition that this finding has been met, when the reality is it hasn't happened, and I don't see anything from NDOT saying we are doing this, it's gonna happen, it's locked in. Could we condition the variance on that actually happening? Maybe not. I'm trying to think of a way where if it's possible, but it might not happen either, and yet we've made this finding.

Leah Picotti, for the record. I've been doing this for a while, and in my experience with variances, sometimes it is a possibility. But really what it is is that there is something different about this property as opposed to the property on the other side of Fifth Street that is not up for acquisition. So it's that... How is this property different from the one next to it that is not up for acquisition? And the difference is, is that this one is up for acquisition. So even though it's a possibility, it does make it different from the one across the street. In my time, I have processed variances on possibilities quite a few times. We've had ones where I've had a drainage way that runs through a property. And we've said, hey, they can't meet the setbacks. The house needs to be moved over here because it's possible that this could flood. It's a possibility. I had one where there was a very old tree on a neighbor's property and the neighbors didn't get along with each other. And the one neighbor was very afraid that the tree was going to fall onto their property. And again, it's an extraordinary circumstance. It's something that's different. And so I think that variances, and this is, I'll have legal back it up. I think that variances can be approved on a possibility because there is something different about this property from the one across the street that doesn't have the possibility of being acquired.

If I can just add on to that too, I think if this was an undeveloped site, a blank slate, we would be looking at this much different, but it's been developed for probably 60 or 70 years. And so, as Leah mentioned in her presentation, there's a lot of non-conformities that exist now, which do also weigh into that.

Yeah, I'd like to hear from legal, if possible, on the possible designation. Thank you.

If this is Jasmine Mehta for the record, if this were, I mean, everything is possible at some point in time, but this is actually, there are end dots in the planning stage. It's not, you know, a plan. you know, kind of a dreamed-up possibility at some point in the future, the fact that they're in the planning stage says that this is, you know, coming down the pike. And that is what I think makes this, you know, an exceptional situation for this property owner.

Okay. Commissioner McCoy, for the record, thank you. That clarifies it for me. I just wanted to make sure that... that we can use the possibility as opposed to needing to find specifically that this is going to happen. So thank you.

All right, any other questions from the commission? I have none. That being said, we can move on to deliberations and entertain a motion if possible. Commissioner McCoy, you've been.

Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. So I appreciate you. Of course, I appreciate the clarifications I'm getting to. All right. Rather than try to pretend like I'm passing the eye exam. Based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit and variance, excluding request item F, irrigation required, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Commissioner. Mr. Councilman, second.

All right. Commissioner Belto for the second. I think you got that one. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

All right. Motion passes unanimously. That puts us into item D7. Staff report for possible action. Case number LDC 26-00020. Excuse me if I pronounce this wrong. Guman Trucking Storage Yard.

Thank you, Commission. For the record, my name's Leah Picotti. And for my final presentation of the night, I'm going to present this trucking storage yard. So the site that we're looking at here is just south of the intersection of Peavine Peak and North Virginia. It is a five-acre site. The request before you today is for a conditional use permit for a truck terminal and non-residential development adjacent to or within 300 feet of a residential zoning district. Staff is recommending denial on this project. So here before you is the zoning map. You can see the site is located in the industrial commercial zone, but that's single family residential across the way. And code very clearly says if there is a residential zoning district within 300 feet, it has to go through the site plan review and then there's residential adjacency requirements. The other thing I want to point out here is that south of the site, see where that parks greenways and open space area is right there? That's a major drainage way. And that flows right down through this site. So key issues that we looked at here is that we've had this application for nine months, and the applicant is asserting that no improvements of any kind are being made or proposed, and they disagree that any improvements need to be made. And without plans, staff cannot verify compatibility, safety, access, or infrastructure compliance. Give you a little bit of background here. So this application was submitted in October of 2025. There was an existing code enforcement case for unpermitted truck storage, fencing, lighting, and grading. When this application came to me, I had been working with the applicant on another site for about a year before that through the business license process, and we had a similar situation going on there. where it was being used as a truck terminal, but it wasn't permitted as such, and they didn't have the improvements that were required for it to be used as a truck terminal. So we determined very early in the process that the truck terminal classification is the appropriate classification. It meets our definition and basically what the applicant is doing is using this as a storage yard for the trucks. So people come here and they drop their cars off and they pick a truck and then they drive out and they do their drive and then they come back and they get back in their car and then they leave, truck terminal. So over the past nine months, staff has had two pretty long meetings with the applicants. And as you probably know, in the state of Nevada, we have to process these applications within 65 days of receiving them. Per Reno Municipal Code, we have to have activity on that permit if they request a waiver of the timeframe. They then have 90 days. We need activity every 90 days to keep this going. We did not have activity on it. so we granted multiple extensions on the basis that the applicant was preparing plans which would include dealing with the unpermitted work that has happened in the drainage way and the engineering that was going to be required to get this into something that would meet code requirements And then, you know, landscaping plans and all the other things because we have residential adjacency. So after we granted several extensions, the final extension was for 90 days. And like just a week before that, the applicant submitted a narrative that basically just stated that they disagreed with everything that we said. So we asked for parking area improvements. parking spaces, and these are all things that are required by code. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk, major drainage way, all the hydrology for that, landscaping and screening, fencing relocation, because the fence is currently in an access easement, and the possibility of restrooms. The applicant disagrees with all of that and has not submitted anything. They said absolutely no construction or improvement of any sort is currently proposed by the application. These two pictures you see here were taken yesterday. So the applicant is still continuing to use the site as a truck terminal. I think they're going on about six years with no business licenses and code enforcement issues. And so now here we are nine months into the planning process, and we have nothing to look at. So with that, a recommended motion for denial is on the board, and I am available for questions, and I believe the applicant also has a presentation.

All right. Thanks, Ms. Picotti. Sir, would you just state your name for the record before your presentation?

My name is Hugh Ezell.

Thank you, sir.

Well, that certainly was dramatic, I have to say, and not entirely truthful either. I'm here tonight to respond to the staff report, which I received day before yesterday, Yeah, stay before yesterday on Monday. So I think a little history here is in order. It's been nine months. I know that's a long time. We've asked for extensions and they were granted by Mr Rayleigh and we appreciate that that. As we go back to the beginning of this whole process. I was approached by the applicant who's behind me, Mr. Guman, after he had received notice from code enforcement that his use of the property was not in compliance with the code, I guess, and that he needed a business license for the property. So, he and I sat down and we talked about what he was doing with the property, and, I came to understand that he essentially was carrying forward with what had been done in the past on the property for quite some time. So I told him that what we needed to do was to bring the property into compliance with a business license. And at that point, I contacted planning and spoke with Mr. Raley. and came in for a pre-application meeting which we had at his office. Mr. Guman was in attendance. And that meeting I thought went rather well. We went in and we told Mr. Raley that we'd been using the property for storing his trucks and his trailers and that's what we wanted to continue doing because that's what's been done on the property for decades, not years, but decades. This is not a new property. This is a very old world, relatively old property. A very old property is the one that we just heard about. This is what. He has been doing with the property and that's what he proposes to continue on with with the property. The property currently is developed. Yeah, bought the property in 2023 and. simply continued using it the way it was. He had no idea that his use of the property was illegal because he had a business license for his trucking business and he thought that with that business license he had the right to use the property. So that's what he was doing. So we went in and spoke with Mr. Raley. It was all smiles and handshakes and pats on the back, and we were very happy about the result. And he noted that he wanted one of his planners to look at the application, which I thought was a good idea. I've always thought that working with staff in planning on issues like this was a good idea. So we had a second meeting. I believe it was at Mr. Raley's office again. And at that time, Mrs. Picotti was in attendance virtually. And in that meeting, essentially the outcome of the meeting was we were told that we didn't want to be doing outdoor storage. We wanted a truck terminal. And we asked, I think we discussed in the meeting, I can't recall clearly, but I believe we discussed what the requirements and what the benefits of truck terminal use were. And the one that stood out was we needed a building, a maintenance building or a building to be doing things in, I'm not quite sure. And that was a problem for us because we hadn't contemplated a building. We just wanted to park trucks on our property. I believe we were assured that we wouldn't have staff's support if we went for outdoor storage. So that's why in the end, after discussing it with Mr. Guman, we decided to apply for a truck terminal. But the building was a problem and we told them that And they suggested, not us, they suggested that we phase the project and move the building down the road. And I thought, well, okay, that might work. If Mr. Guman develops his business to the point where he can afford a building and expand his business to that far, it might work for us. So I asked him, well, how long down the road can we go? And they said, well, we were thinking three or four years down the road. And I told them, I'm thinking 10 years down the road, maybe. I needed to buy time for my client, because he's got a little business. This isn't Swift Trucking sitting behind me here, or Estes Trucking. This is Khalid Guman. He has 17 drivers. Currently and that fluctuates up and down Long-haul drivers, so he's not really a wealthy man. He doesn't really have a lot of resource This property alone is draining on his resources today So I've Applied we applied for ten years for a phase two on the building I figured that would buy us enough time to know what we were going to do and how to get there. Little did I know, because I was assuming, and boy, boy, that was a wrong thing to do, to assume. Little did I know that the phase two portion, even though we weren't going to construct it, would trigger in the development portions of the application immediately. So it was with complete surprise when we received the comments from staff that there were hundreds of thousands of dollars of offsite development that they wanted in association with this phase two, which may not occur. That was a big problem. It still is a big problem. So at that point, instead of this just being a simple application for outdoor storage and get our business license and continue using the parcel like it's always been, I had to dig in on this because staff came across with what personally I feel were irrational and excessive requirements on the client. So anyway, Mr. Goodman and I had another discussion, and we were talking about, well, what are we gonna do? He can't do what they're asking us. He can't afford what they're asking us. He can't afford a loan because he's got the debt on the property, outstanding debt, but he can't get a loan. He doesn't have the resource to do what they're asking. We're gonna talk about that here in a second. What are we gonna do? And I told him, I said, well, Let's keep working on it and see if we can work with staff. This is in about November, I think. Work with staff and get this to a point where it's tenable and we can work with it and make it happen. So he was agreeable to that. So I had a meeting with staff. I don't know. Mrs. Picotti mentioned it in her staff report. And we started in on these conditions, they were comments, but they were to become conditions of approval. And the meeting wasn't really progressing very well, and we didn't get very far before everybody had to step out. They had ran out of time in their schedule, so we agreed for a second meeting. And I don't know if it was in the first meeting or if it was between the first meeting and the second meeting, but I presented the city with a query because, well, we should take a look at the site. Let's stop for a second and look at the site. Okay. Let me pull up a good picture. Here's a picture right here we can use. So this is the site. as it appeared in late last year. You can see the boundaries of the site. This is called Peavine Peak Road. I don't know if any of you went up there and had a look at it or not. But Peavine Peak Road is the source of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and contention on this application because the conditions, the comments that they came back with, they want us to fully upgrade Peavine Peak Road, and I'm not talking about minor upgrades. They want it fully paved with curb gutter and sidewalk and landscape strips. And this is Peavine Peak Road. This is as far out of Reno northward as you're gonna get before you're finding yourself at Red Rock or in Cold Springs. Our nearest neighbors are two jackrabbits and a coyote that live right over here. I started looking at Peavine Peak Road because, first of all, these developments, these issues are costly, very costly. Frankly, I don't think these people over here have any conception for what improvements cost. It's easy to throw out requirements, but funding requirements and actually making them happen is not an easy thing to do, especially for people with little means. So I had to look at Peavine Peak Road. And I realized all of a sudden, actually I was talking with Mr. Guma about it, and he said, I was talking with the neighbor up the hill, and they mentioned that Peavine Peak Road is a private road, not a public street. Because the comments are referring to it as a public street. And I thought, that doesn't make any sense. So I started looking at it, and... Yeah, it appeared to me like it's a private road. So I sent an email to the city and I requested support or reference to why they thought Peavine Peak Road is a public street, a public way. And they came back with reference to this parcel map. Yeah, that's better. Zoom on that. This is Peavine Peak Road over here. And the reference was this parcel map made Peavine Peak Road or caused Peavine Peak Road to be a public quay. You can see that the access is developed by a document, 37533 it is. Okay, I knew about this parcel map and I got the document and I read it. And lo and behold, that document does form an easement for the United States government and the FAA. But it's a private easement for them to use this access to access an FAA site up on Peavine Mountain. It's long gone now. That didn't make any sense to me. So we went into this second meeting and My brain was on this. Their brains were on everything. But I was on Peavine Peak Road and the axis. And I started pushing on this. And I started asking about why Peavine Peak Road is considered a public street. Because I told them, I don't think it is. I told them, I'm not even sure it's a private street. The meeting didn't go very far, and it didn't go very well. There were some unpleasantries that came across the table at me in this possibly recorded meeting. So I decided at that point I wasn't gonna be able to work with staff on this project. I did find this parcel map, and this is relevant. I'm running out of time. I hope you'll give me more time, but if not, we'll leave it at that. This is a parcel map that shows Peavine Peak Road, you can see it there. And this is a more recent parcel map than 1616 that we were just looking at. But if you look at that, Peavine Peak Road, the area, is part of parcel one. Peavine Peak Road is private property. It's not public property, it's private. So if you go into the public works manual and you look, I'm gonna have to hurry because I only have a half a minute left. If you look, a public street has to be owned, the property has to be owned by the city. It's by definition. A private street is maintained and constructed by private entities or private owners. So this is private property. I don't care what the city thinks. That's private property. So that makes it either a private street or makes it not even a private street, Peavy Peak Road. May I have a little more time?

If you have a, I'm willing to entertain a closing statement, a final thing, but not to exceed another 30 to 45 seconds.

Okay.

What would you like to leave us with?

Long story short. We'll do it long story short here. Peavine Peak Road is not even a private street. It's a driveway. And it has access easement for multiple private entities across the property. But I could not find a dedication, I could not find any reference that would make Peavine Peak Road a public street. And based upon it being a public street is why the Public Works Manual is being applied to use which has been in existence for 20 years is all the applicant wants is to propagate the use forward. I was going to request that the Planning Commission set aside the denial tonight and approve the project based upon a set of conditions of approval that I was going to offer, but I guess I won't have time for that.

We might have some time for that under questions. So that's it. Thank you for your presentation.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to disclosures.

Commissioner McCoy. Chair, Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

All right, Commissioner Williams, read and reviewed material. Commissioners online.

Commissioner Gompiantini, no disclosures.

Commissioner Veltor, read and reviewed material.

All right, great. Puts us into public comment. Madam Clerk.

We have received correspondence for this item. We have received correspondence for this item that were entered into the record and forwarded to the commission, but I do not have any requests to speak forms in person. We do not have anyone online with their hand raised.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right. We will close public comment and move to questions from the commission.

Chair, this is Commissioner Valto. I'm ready to make a motion.

Mr. Valto, okay, duly noted.

Chair, I do have some questions. Okay. I would like to. And perhaps it's more for staff than for the applicant right now at this moment. I definitely sense the frustration in the planning of this project on both sides. it seems as if there is a problem, there is an enforcement issue, somebody wants to keep working, keep using this facility as this parking lot, whatever it might be. I don't know if the application that we have before us gets us to that solution. And so what I'm kind of wondering is does it, is there an application that allows them to use the property the way that they've been using it that doesn't involve all of the requirements that they're concerned for? Is there another avenue that if we were to pause on this, could be, well, I guess that's kind of my idea. If we were to even pause on this, if this applicant, and I don't see the findings that were here. If we pause on this, are we doing ourselves any favor? Is it gonna be something that we can address with another 60 days, another 90 days? That's kind of what I'm looking for. And then also whether or not anything has been submitted since the staff report that would provide all the required findings that you indicate we don't have or cannot make, the staff cannot make. Has that been provided since the staff report?

Those are all great questions. Leah Picotti for the record. So my job as a planner is to sit down with these applicants and figure out the best avenue to help them succeed. And sometimes that requires improvements. It depends on the site, right? I always like, you know, I'm a planner. I mean, I like to come forward and say, yes, we have some options. Here's how we can look at this. Here's how we can do this. The problem that we have here is that there is no business license on this site for them to operate. And the improvements that have been done to the property to facilitate the existing, and I'm putting quotes around that, storage yard are not permitted. So it's a two-fold issue. One is that these improvements are gonna be required. Doesn't matter if they do an outdoor storage yard, doesn't matter if they're gonna do a truck terminal, these improvements are required, period. They're non-negotiable. And I have dug into the history of this property I have a full timeline of exactly what has happened, when it was annexed. It did have a special use permitted on it from the 90s. I've gone all through that. That was with Washoe County. And what we've determined is that unpermitted work has been done to this property. It's affecting the major drainageway that comes down onto this property, and that needs to be remedied. We have, we presented the possibility of a phased plan as a way to help them get into compliance. But I will tell you that I have been with the city for almost five years. This is the first recommendation of denial that I have ever done. If that gives you an idea of what we do as planners.

If I can add on to that, this, as Leah mentioned earlier, came essentially to planning through the result of a code enforcement action. There's pending code enforcement action on this property. The only way to resolve that is to get a conditional use permit and legally permit the use. We have code standards that apply to all properties. We're not singling out anybody to pick on the code mandates, parking, paving, landscaping, screening. They're proposing that they want to do none of those. We cannot support a project that does not meet basic code requirements.

May I follow up?

Not at the moment.

Okay the the other question had is whether or not the And I don't I don't think it does but I just like to make the record clear Whether the road is private or public Doesn't impact your inability to make the findings that we have to look look at I just like to get that on the record That's a great question for Doug Give him a chance to speak while he's here And again this Commissioner McCoy for the record

Good evening. Douglas Buck, Development and Review Manager. The road is private, whether it's a driveway or a road. It's required to be developed to Public Works Design Manual standards regardless of ownership. That doesn't matter. That applies to every road in the community that's built in our current code. Right now it's a dirt road that's washed out that's tracking debris onto Virginia Street. It's not for trucks. There are other development projects in the works that intend to use that road through the easements to serve other industrial sites, and they're working on paving projects for that road to develop it and cross the railroad tracks. This project does not propose any work, any improvements, and the question about public versus private has never been an issue for staff. Staff has insisted from the beginning that the city does not want this to be a public street, that the maintenance will be private in perpetuity.

Okay, so just to clarify, it doesn't matter to the city whether it's private. Your inability to make the findings are not prefaced based on the private or public nature. Wouldn't matter either way. Okay, thank you.

I'm going to keep you up just for a second. I just want to clarify, Commissioner Williams. Is it fair to say that what you just said was essentially that this private road or whatever we want to call it today essentially is a private road until it becomes used for something else? Then then and then our our public works manual So if somebody were to drive on this road and use it as to access their property That's one thing that falls outside of a completely different understanding of when commercial traffic Let's just use commercial traffic at this point starts to use that road and in a fashion commercially

The beneficiaries of the easement that have property rights right now are allowed to use that easement. As soon as they want to develop that property, bring a business to that property, that is when the trigger for roadway improvements would occur. And staff's requirement is that that should remain private regardless of what the future use is there.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other questions from the commission?

May I follow up please?

Here's what we'll do. I'll give you an opportunity to come up and it's not gonna be brief. I have a question for you if you'd like to answer. Your last submission to the city was a four page narrative that didn't propose anything. No remedies, no options, no compromises, no suggestions. It was just a four page narrative given to the city that doesn't address anything that the city is asking you to comply with. So do you have any intention of, I guess the question is, do you have any intention of doing any of that? I think to me it's pretty clear that this property requires something.

We did have a proposal tonight. We were going to propose conditions of approval that did quite a bit. We were going to propose limitations on the hours. We were going to propose a variance on the height for the storage because we need that. we were doing here is proposing how to use the site. No drivers sleeping, how to address dust emissions. We submitted, we hired an engineer and he submitted a drainage and grading plan to the city and the city refused to accept it. So if we can't submit our engineering analysis to the city, then we can't comply.

Okay, I think you answered my question, and so I have one more question from staff, and thank you for that. Mr. Peccati or Mr. Raley, if at this point this gentleman and who he represents wants to submit these conditions, which appear to at least make some type of progress towards remedying the site. What is the path for him to submit conditions at this point? I'm guessing it's not during our planning commission meeting.

I mean, he can submit them for the record tonight. However, these conditions fail to address the basic code requirements that I mentioned earlier.

Okay, so the core issues of the application are not addressed by the conditions.

And one of the conditions would actually grant a variance.

Okay, all right, thank you, sir.

We did try to improve Peavoy Peak Road privately, too, with the landowner, and received no response.

Okay, sir, thank you.

Thank you.

All right. If we are done with questions, I think it moves to deliberations, and Commissioner Velto, I think you had asked.

Yes, I'm prepared to make a motion. I spent a lot of time reviewing this staff report, and I agree with the staff's recommendation. And with that, in the matter of case number LDC26-00020, based upon noncompliance of the applicable findings, I move to deny the conditional use permit.

All right, we have a motion.

I second.

All right, and a second by Commissioner Gonfantini. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Motion and projects denied unanimously. And Mr. Raley.

Thank You mr. Chair I'd like to read the appeal process into the record any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Reno City Council by the applicant the mayor or a City Council member or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction an Appeal together with fees must be filed with the city clerk within ten working days Starting on the day after the written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk All right Thank You.

Mr. Raley That ends tonight, at least on to business E, which is business items. We have E1, discussion and potential appointment by the Planning Commission for one member and an alternative to serve on the Design Review Committee to review Skyway plans.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do need to reconvene the Skyway Committee, the Design Review Committee for Skyway. The commissioners that were previously, has not met for several years. So the commissioners that were previously on that committee are no longer on the commission.

Okay.

So we just need to nominate a representative as well as an alternate.

Okay. Does any of our current commissioners like to volunteer?

Chair, Commissioner McCoy, for the record, I don't know quite what it is I'm volunteering for, but I am always happy to do so.

Commissioner Gonfintini, happy to be an alternate.

Okay. So we'll take a motion to, yeah.

To appoint Commissioner McCoy. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Velto, would you do us a favor? Make a motion. Yes, happy to. Would you make a motion to appoint our two and a backup?

Yes, Commissioner Velto, I move to appoint Commissioner McCoy as the member of the Design Review Committee and Commissioner Gonfiantini as the alternate.

Commissioner Williams for the record, I second. And all those in favor of that, aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Okay, that passes unanimously. Okay, on for E1. We have item F, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Resort, and unless Commissioner Gonfiantini says otherwise, they did not meet, and therefore don't have a report for this meeting. And moves this on to G, future agenda items. Nothing from staff. All right. H, Madam Clerk.

We do not have any public comment for this item.

All right. We're going to post public comment as nobody's present and looking for a motion to adjourn.

Commissioner McCoy, a motion to adjourn.

Commissioner Gompain-Tinney, second.

All right. Motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you.