City of Reno
Nevada

Ordinance
8926

Staff Report (For Possible Action): Ordinance Introduction - Bill No. ________ Case No. LDC18-00016 (Double R Apartments) Ordinance to amend Title 18, Chapter 18.08 of the Reno Municipal Code, entitled "Zoning," Section 18.08.102(b).1356, to change the text in the South Meadows III Planned Unit Development (PUD) Design Standards to: allow for multifamily residential as an allowed use in a ±15 acre portion of Planning Unit J located on the northeast corner of Double R Boulevard and Double Diamond Parkway, south of Technology Drive within the ±669 acre South Meadows III PUD; together with other matters properly relating thereto.

Information

Department:Community Development - Planning & EngineeringSponsors:
Category:OrdinanceWards:Ward 2

Recommendation and Proposed Motion

Recommendation:  The Planning Commission recommends Council adopt the requested zoning text amendment by ordinance, subject to compliance with Condition A, which includes the changes to the PUD Design Guidelines.

 

Proposed Motion:  I move to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the Minute Order attached hereto as Exhibit A; and refer Bill No. ____ for a second reading.

 

Staff Report Formal Body

Summary:  This is a request for a zoning map amendment to the South Meadows III Planned Unit Development (PUD) Handbook to allow for multifamily residential as an allowed use in a portion of Planning Unit J.  The ±15 acre site is located on the northeast corner of Double R Boulevard and Double Diamond Parkway, south of Technology Drive within the ±669 acre South Meadows III PUD.  The site has a Master Plan land use designation of Special Planning Area (South Meadows III PUD).

 

The Planning Commission recommends Council approve the requested amendments to the Design Guidelines by ordinance, subject to compliance with Condition A.  Exhibit A, attached to the report, contains the findings (Minute Order) that the City Council must make to approve this project as required by NRS 278A.  It is recommended the City Council incorporate these findings by reference as part of their motion.  All of the proposed changes to the handbook are contained in Exhibit B attached to this report.  A full analysis of the project can be found within the Planning Commission staff report in Exhibit C. Planning Commission minutes can also be found in Exhibit D.

 

Background:  At the November 1, 2017 Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant gave an overview of their project highlighting the various proposed changes and how the project meets all the proposed findings particularly with regards to traffic, school capacity, and available infrastructure.  The applicant stated that he agreed with staff’s recommendation.  Staff reiterated the applicant’s presentation and explained that the establishment of multifamily residential on the subject site would not create any nonconformities with the surrounding uses.  Members of the Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB) and the public in attendance at the NAB meeting were concerned with the potential of hazardous materials in the surrounding properties.  The United States Drug Enforcement Agency (USDEA) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) facilities located to the east were of particular concern to those at the meeting.  The applicant confirmed that they contacted the agent in charge at the USDEA building and there were no hazardous materials stored at the building.  Both the USDEA and USDA confirmed to City staff that there will not be hazardous materials stored at any levels that would be of concern. 

 

There was one public comment expressing concern with the existing traffic on Double R Boulevard and the potential for this project to make traffic worse.

 

Discussion: Questions from the Planning Commission centered on traffic and access to the site.  Staff explained that the potential traffic was calculated conservatively using a maximum development scenario of 450 multifamily units.  While there would be an increase in traffic from a warehouse and distribution use, the development of multifamily residential would result in a peak hour decrease from an office development.  Further, it was noted that there is a maximum cap on the total number of trips that could be generated in the entire PUD.  City staff explained that Traffic on Double R Boulevard is anticipated to decrease with people using the new Southeast Connector rather than I-580.  A full traffic analysis was included in the Planning Commission staff report in Exhibit C.

 

The applicant explained that their intention was to place ingress and egress from Technology Way and for a right turn in and out along Double R Boulevard.  Staff noted that a full traffic and access study will be required at the time of the building permit and that access was not considered as part of the zone change.  City of Reno and Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) standards exist for the placement of access points on arterial streets.  These standards will be evaluated at the time of a building permit. 

 

Advisory Commission Vote: Four in favor; none opposed; two abstentions; one absent.

 

Financial Implications:  None at this time.

 

Legal Implications:  None at this time.

 

Findings:

 

PUD Planned Unit DevelopmentFindings of fact required for approval of a PUD (Planned Unit Development):  In addition to the City's zoning map amendment findings, the Planning Commission and City Council must make the findings that the project is consistent with NRS 278A.410 2(a), (b) and (c), 278A.500 17, and 278A.510.  These findings are listed below:

 

NRS 278A.410 - Modification of plan by city or county.  All provisions of the plan authorized to be enforced by the city or county may be modified, removed or released by the city or county, except grants or easements relating to the service or equipment of a public utility unless expressly consented to by the public utility, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      No such modification, removal or release of the provisions of the plan by the city or county may affect the rights of the residents of the planned unit residential development to maintain and enforce those provisions.

 

The proposed standards will only impact the subject property.  There are existing standards in the handbook that are applicable to the whole PUD.  Those standards are not proposed to be modified and will still be applicable to the subject property. 

 

2.      No modification, removal or release of the provisions of the plan by the city or county is permitted except upon a finding by the city or county, following a public hearing that it:

 

(a)               Is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire planned unit development;

 

The existing PUD contains a number of standards for architecture, landscape, community amenities, etc., that ensure consistency throughout the entire PUD.  The proposed amendment will maintain all of these existing standards while adding standards for development on the subject property.  The uses and density proposed for the subject site are generally consistent with the adjacent multifamily residential.  Further, the use restrictions for properties adjacent to multifamily properties will ensure consistency with the surrounding non-residential uses.  The impacts from the proposed amendment on infrastructure within the PUD are minimal.  Standards for infrastructure capacity, wetlands management, and traffic management already exist within the PUD and are not anticipated to be impacted by allowing multifamily residential on the subject site.  Prior to any development, the applicant will not only be required to demonstrate compliance with all the standards in the PUD handbook, but the Reno Municipal Code, the Public Works Design Manual, and any other requirements governing development in the region.  These standards require all adequate studies be conducted and plans be prepared to ensure the development will not have an impact to the surrounding community.  The character and functionality of the PUD will be preserved with the proposed amendment. 

 

(b)               Does not adversely affect either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest; and

 

It is in the interest of the region to provide increased housing supply to house the growing workforce.  The proposed amendment will allow for the subject property to be developed with multifamily residential at a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre.  Increased density can also assist in providing more affordable housing, which is also in the public interest. 

 

The proposed use is consistent with the existing multifamily residential use located to the south.  The proposed amendment would allow for the residential use to be established as an alternative to the uses normally allowed within Planning Unit J.  If the subject property is developed with a residential use, the adjacent properties would receive some use restrictions for cocktail lounges; outdoor auto repair; outdoor maintenance, repair and renovation; business with hazardous waste.  Based on the business license data, there are no adjacent properties with any of the prohibited uses.  Therefore, there will be no properties that are adversely affected.

 

(c)              Is not granted solely to confer a private benefit upon any person.

             

The proposed amendment does not confer a benefit to the subject properties that is not currently allowed on surrounding properties.  The multifamily development located directly to the south allows for residential development as do a number of other planning units within the handbook.

 

NRS 278A.500 - Minute order:  Findings of fact required.  The grant or denial of tentative approval by minute action must set forth the reasons for the grant, with or without conditions, or for the denial, and the minutes must set forth with particularity in what respects the plan would or would not be in the public interest, including but not limited to findings on the following:

 

1.      In what respects the plan is or is not consistent with the statement of objectives of a planned unit development.

 

Page 18 of the PUD contains two objective statements:

 

The first objective provides a comprehensive description of the specific guidelines for development within South Meadows Phase III.  The Design Guidelines will be used by the Master Developer and government agencies to review each individual Parcel Developer’s proposal for conformance with the overall design objectives.  The Design Guidelines include site planning standards; street, parking lot, and sidewalk standards; architectural standards, landscape design elements, and permitted/prohibited uses. 

 

The second objective is to conform to the requirements of NRS 278A, which governs Planned Developments.  NRS 278A.0101 through 278A.590, as revised in 1991, outline specific requirements that must be addressed in either the graphic or the written material accompanying the tentative plan for a Planned Unit Development.  Most of those requirements have been addressed either in this South Meadows Phase III PUD Design Guidelines or by the revisions proposed with this application. 

 

The proposed use meets all objectives for a PUD with respect to the design guidelines noted above.   The amendment provides a new permitted land use and ties the design to the existing standards.  The use and design guidelines contained in the amendment are consistent with the surrounding uses and standards contained in adjacent planning units. 

 

Land Use Compatibility – Land uses surrounding the subject site consist of offices located to the north, offices and industrial uses located to the east and west, and multifamily residential located to the south.  The proposed multifamily residential use is compatible with the existing residential use to the south.  Further, development and use standards are proposed or already exist in the handbook to ensure the surrounding non-residential uses will not have an impact on any residential use that is developed on the property. 

 

Traffic Impact Management – Based on a traffic analysis comparing the maximum development potential of 450 dwelling units with the proposed amendment to a warehouse or office scenario, it was determined that the overall level of trips could be increased from what is currently allowed on the site.  However, when considering an office development, the proposed amendment could result in a decrease of the peak hour trips.  The PUD limits the total number of allowable trips for all uses in the handbook to 38,845 ADT.  The applicant will be required to complete a traffic study showing that this number is not exceeded and that the level of service (LOS) on the surrounding street network and intersections will maintain a LOS “D.”

 

Jobs/Housing Balance – A large majority of the land uses in the South Meadows III PUD are designated for commercial or industrial development.  Residential demand near employment centers is in high demand.  The proposed alternative would allow high density residential near a number of jobs providing a greater jobs/housing balance. 

 

Pedestrian/Bicycle Access – Bicycle lanes currently exist along the project front on Double Diamond Parkway and Double R Boulevard.  A sidewalk is currently along Double R Boulevard and Technology Way.  Additionally, the PUD handbook contains standards for pedestrian access throughout projects within the PUD including, but not limited to trails and sidewalk connectivity within developments. 

 

Cost-Effective Infrastructure – The PUD is located in an infill area where infrastructure already exists.  No new lines are anticipated to be developed with the project.  A full utility review will be completed at the time of building permit.  The existing PUD handbook and the City’s Public Works Design Manual contain a number of infrastructure provisions that will ensure that there is cost-effective infrastructure brought to the project.  

 

Open Space – Open Space within the greater South Meadows III PUD consists primarily of wetlands (±143.42 acres) which were delineated by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 1991.  This amendment will not have any impact on the existing amount and location of open space in the PUD.  There are existing open space/wetlands located along the south side of the site.  The PUD also contains adequate provisions for maintenance of the open space via 10 assessments contained in the project master Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions, which were recorded by the Master Developer with the original project approval in 1995.

Water Conservation – Water conservation will be utilized through the landscape design, which will be reviewed at the building permit stage.  Irrigation standards exist within the handbook to ensure the efficient use of water.

 

Housing Variety – The proposed amendment would allow for housing to be developed as an alternative to office or industrial uses.  This would allow a greater level of housing variety within the PUD handbook. 

 

Support Uses – There are a variety of uses allowed in various Planning Units within the PUD including retail commercial, office, industrial, and residential.  The location of the proposed residential will be close to employment uses and is within one mile of several shopping centers with grocery stores.  Additionally, there are a number of vacant parcels in the area that would allow the development of more support uses in the future. 

 

2.      The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to the property, including but not limited to density, bulk and use, and the reasons why these departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest.

 

There is minimal departure from typical zoning code.  As the site develops the buildings and all site improvements will be consistent with the PUD development standards and MF30 standards in the RMC.  Many standards for trails, fencing, landscaping, signs, etc., are more specific in the handbook than the zoning code.  Standards that are more specific than the zoning code and are broadly applied throughout the PUD will create a consistent character throughout the community establishing a clear sense of place that is not typically done through the zoning code. 

 

3.      The ratio of residential to nonresidential use in the planned unit development.

 

The site can be used for residential or non-residential uses, but not both.  If the site is developed with residential as proposed in the amendment, there will be a decrease in employment land in the PUD.  The PUD is primarily comprised of non-residential uses.  The development of a single ±15 acre parcel will not have a significant impact on the ±669 acre PUD. 

 

4.      The purpose, location and amount of the common open space in the planned unit development, the reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of the common open space, and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and purpose of the common open space as related to the proposed density and type of residential development.

 

Open Space within the greater South Meadows III PUD consists primarily of wetlands (±143.42 acres) which were delineated by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 1991.  This amendment will not have any impact on the existing amount and location of open space in the PUD.  There are existing open space/wetlands located along the south side of the site.  The PUD also contains adequate provisions for maintenance of the open space via 10 assessments contained in the project master Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions, which were recorded by the Master Developer with the original project approval in 1995. 

 

5.      The physical design of the plan and the manner in which the design does or does not make adequate provision for public services, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic, and further the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment.

 

As approved, the plan contains standards to provide public services and adequate control of vehicle traffic.  This backbone infrastructure has been constructed and is adequate for the entire PUD, including this request. Building and landscape design standards ensure that the amenities of light and air are adequately provided and preserved.  This request has no effect on existing recreational amenities or visual enjoyment within the PUD.

 

6.      The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the proposed planned unit development to the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established.

 

The use and density included in the amended portion of the PUD are consistent with the rest of the PUD and, therefore, do not represent an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.  Further, none of the standards for any of the other planning areas and parcels will be impacted by the proposed amendment. 

 

7.      In the case of a plan which proposes development over a period of years, the sufficiency of the terms and conditions intended to protect the interests of the public, residents and owners of the planned unit development in the integrity of the plan.

 

The PUD was originally intended to develop over a 15 to 20 year timeframe.  At this point the PUD is ±85 percent developed.  Although the Plan has been amended 16 times, the terms and conditions have remained sufficient to protect the interests of the public, residents, and owner in terms of the integrity of the plan.  This amendment should continue this trend with no adverse impact on the PUD anticipated

 

NRS 278A.510 Minute order:  Specification of time for filing application for final approval. Unless the time is specified in an agreement entered into pursuant to NRS 278.0201, if a plan is granted tentative approval, with or without conditions, the city or county shall set forth, in the minute action, the time within which an application for final approval of the plan must be filed or, in the case of a plan which provides for development over a period of years, the periods within which application for final approval of each part thereof must be filed.

 

Per Condition A, the applicant will be required to have this amendment certified by the City Council and recorded by Washoe County within four months to effectuate the amendment. 

 

NRS 278.250(2) - Zoning Map Amendment:  General zoning map amendment requirements.  In order to approve any zoning map amendment, the Planning Commission and City Council shall find that the zoning is in accordance with the Master Plan for land use and be designed, as applicable:

 

a.      To preserve the quality of air and water resources.

 

Development of the site will conform to codified air and water quality standards.  The PUD standards in conjunction with City code, Washoe County Health District regulations, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and Army Corps of Engineers regulations provide appropriate protection of air and water quality, including the wetlands along the south side of the site. 

 

b.      To promote the conservation of open space and the protection of other natural and scenic resources from unreasonable impairment.

 

This request will have no impact on the open space and other natural resources currently designated, developed and protected within the South Meadows Phase III PUD.  All existing open space and natural resources within the South Meadows Phase III will continue to be protected as currently provided in the overall PUD.

 

c.       To consider existing views and access to solar resources by studying the height of new buildings which will cast shadows on surrounding residential and commercial developments.

 

The allowable height on the subject site would be 45 feet, whereas the surrounding non-residential properties are allowed to be 55 feet.  Therefore, if the subject site is developed at its maximum potential, it is not likely to cast any shadows on neighboring roofs for solar access.  Further, the properties located to the north are separated by a large collector street and setbacks ranging from ±20 to ±95 feet.  When combined with the required setbacks for the subject property, any proposed development is not likely to cast shadows on the adjacent properties. 

 

d.      To reduce the consumption of energy by encouraging the use of products and materials which maximize energy efficiency in the construction of buildings.

 

There are no standards in the handbook to address energy efficiency in the construction of buildings.  The current building code requirements contain standards to ensure the building will be developed with energy efficiency.  As such, this requirement will be analyzed when a project is proposed.  

 

e.       To provide for recreational needs.

 

The PUD has an extensive trail network and standards for new trails and recreational amenities along open space areas like the wetlands along the south side of the site.  Further, the proposed standards reference the current zoning code, which requires recreational amenities for multifamily residential projects with two bedrooms.  Further, the site is located within walking distance of the Huffaker Hills open space area which contains a number of recreational opportunities.  

 

f.        To protect life and property in areas subject to floods, landslides and other natural disasters.

 

The site is graded and is not currently subject to floods, landslides, and other natural disasters.  The South Meadows Phase III PUD has been designed to minimize flooding with construction of drainage facilities including wetlands like those that cross along the southern boundary of the subject site.  Adding the proposed standards governing residential development on this site will not impact these issues since they have already been addressed in the handbook. 

 

g.      To conform to the adopted population plan, if required by NRS 278.170.

 

The PUD conformed to the population plan per NRS when originally approved in 1995.  This request would have a positive impact on the adopted population plan as the proposed use allows residential.  The project would help meet projected population and associated housing needs of the City as documented in the City’s Population Plan.  If the maximum of 450 units that would be allowed with the proposed amendment, it will house ±990 people based on current estimates of 2.2 people per household

 

h.      To develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of transportation and public facilities and services, including public access and sidewalks for pedestrians, and facilities and services for bicycles.

 

The street network already exists within the PUD.  Sidewalks are currently installed along the west and north property boundaries.  A trail will be required to be installed along the wetlands located on the south portion of the property.  Additionally, bicycle lanes are currently installed along Double Diamond Parkway and Double R Boulevard.  There is also a bus stop located near the southeast corner of Double Diamond Parkway and Double R Boulevard.  All standards exist within the handbook and the City’s zoning code to ensure there will be adequate circulation on the project site.

 

i.        To ensure that the development on land is commensurate with the character of the physical limitations of the land.

 

The subject site is generally already graded for future development.  There are standards in place to ensure the wetlands along the southern portion of the site will be protected.  Therefore, the standards will ensure that development is commensurate with the physical limitations of the land. 

 

j.        To take into account the immediate and long-range financial impact of the application of particular land to particular kinds of development, and the relative suitability of the land for development.

 

Leaving the land it its current natural vegetative state does not help with the long range financial impacts of the City.  Development of the site under the current standards and the proposed standards will generate jobs during construction and ongoing operations.  The land will also be improved by adding landscaping and pedestrian access through the parcel, thereby improving the value of surrounding properties.  Further, development on the site will increase the taxable value of the land bringing increased revenue into the City.  While non-residential development such as offices and industrial typically bring a more positive fiscal impact to the City, housing supply is needed. 

 

k.      To promote health and the general welfare.

 

This request will promote the health and general welfare in providing controlled development that will be consistent with the surrounding uses and development form. 

 

l.        To ensure the development of an adequate supply of housing for the community, including the development of affordable housing.

 

There is the possibility for ±450 additional units to be developed on the site at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre.  It is possible that the increased density could assist in the development of affordable residential.  

 

m.   To ensure the protection of existing neighborhoods and communities, including the protection of rural preservation neighborhoods.

 

The proposed PUD amendment will not impact the adjacent residential neighborhood.  While some uses will be restricted in the surrounding office and industrial developments, none of those uses currently exist.  Therefore, there will not be any non-conformities created with this amendment.  There are no rural preservation neighborhoods in the area. 

 

n.      To promote systems which use solar or wind energy.

 

Although solar and wind energy systems could be added in the future, subject to compliance with the standards in the PUD and City Code, there are no solar energy systems proposed at this time. 

 

o.      To foster the coordination and compatibility of land uses with any military installation in the city, county or region, taking into account the location, purpose and stated mission of the military installation.

 

This finding is not applicable as there are no military installations in proximity to the site. 

Ordinance or Resolution

 

ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.08 OF THE RENO MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED "ZONING", SECTION 18.08.102(b).1356, TO CHANGE THE TEXT IN THE SOUTH MEADOWS III PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DESIGN STANDARDS TO: ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS AN ALLOWED USE IN A ±15 ACRE PORTION OF PLANNING UNIT J LOCATED NORTHEAST CORNER OF DOUBLE R BOULEVARD AND DOUBLE DIAMOND PARKWAY, SOUTH OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE WITHIN THE ±669 ACRE SOUTH MEADOWS III PUD; TOGETHER WITH OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.

 

                            SPONSORED BY:  RENO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

 

                            THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENO DO ORDAIN:

 

              SECTION 1. Chapter 18.08 of the Reno Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to be known as Section 18.08.102(b).1356 relating to a ±15 acre site located on the northeast corner of Double R Boulevard and Double Diamond Parkway, south of Technology Drive within the ±669 acre South Meadows III PUD and more particularly described in the attached "Exhibit A"; to change the text in the PUD Design Standards Handbook to:  allow for multifamily residential as an allowed use in a portion of Planning Unit J, the same to read as follows:

 

              Sec. 18.08.102(b).1356.  The zoning of the City of Reno as heretofore established is hereby amended in the manner shown on the map labeled Case No. LDC18-00016, thereby changing the use of land indicated therein, relating to a ±15 acre site located on the northeast corner of Double R Boulevard and Double Diamond Parkway within the ±669 acre South Meadows III PUD, and more particularly described in the attached "Exhibit A"; to change the text in the PUD Design Standards Handbook to: allow for multifamily residential as an allowed use in a portion of Planning Unit J.

 

 

 

 

CASE NO. LDC18-00016 (Double R Apartments)

 


SECTION 2.  This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage, adoption and publication in one issue of a newspaper printed and published in the City of Reno; and upon certification by City Council of the amended PUD Design Standards Handbook for Case No. LDC18-00016 and recordation of the amended PUD Design Standards Handbook for Case No. LDC18-00016.

 

SECTION 3.  The City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council of the City of Reno is hereby authorized and directed to have this Ordinance published in one issue of the RenoGazette Journal, a newspaper printed and published in the City of Reno.

 

PASSED AND ADOPTED this       day of                 ,       , by the following vote of the Council:

 

AYES:

 

NAYS:

 

ABSTAIN:

 

ABSENT:

 

 

 

              APPROVED this           day of                                           ,      .

 

 

 

 

                                                                

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF RENO

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

                                                                         

CITY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENO, NEVADA

 

 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 

 

LDC18-00016 (Double R Apartments) - ord - JDB.doc



Meeting History

Dec 6, 2017 12:00 PM Video Reno City Council Regular

Vice Mayor Jardon asked if proper notice was given.

City Clerk Turney stated that proper notice was given and two letters in opposition were received: 1) Michael R. Kuhn, 1516 Rio Grande Drive; and 2) Donna Young, dlyoung123@yahoo.com.

Jeff Borchardt, Community Development Associate Planner, presented an overview of the staff report and answered questions from Council Members.

The Vice Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. There were no requests to speak, and the Vice Mayor closed the public comment portion of the hearing.

MAYOR SCHIEVE PRESENT AT 2:00 P.M. VICE MAYOR JARDON CONTINUED TO PRESIDE THROUGH ITEM F.1.

Council Member Duerr discussed traffic concerns in the area and stated that what she is looking for in the next stage of permits is to make sure there is a thorough analysis of traffic ingress and egress and identify if there is any support for traffic lights or speed reduction on Double R Boulevard.

Council Member Brekhus discussed residents’ concerns regarding the 45 mph speed limit. She also suggested the possibility of restricting some industrial uses for the properties next to these apartments.

Janelle Thomas, Community Development Senior Civil Engineer, responded to comments by Council Member Brekhus and stated that she can coordinate discussions with Public Works regarding whether or not the 45 mph speed limit in the area is too high.

Council Member McKenzie discussed citizen concerns that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was permitted without a traffic study.

Ms. Thomas stated she will look into whether or not the DMV has been issued a permit.

Ms. Thomas confirmed for Council Member Delgado that a traffic report would not come before the Council but that this would go forward as a building permit and be reviewed at the staff level. She also stated that they can contact Public Works to see if there are opportunities for placing specific truck routes.

Vince Griffith, Reno Engineering Corporation, stated that he agrees with the staff recommendations and that they will get into the details on the issues being discussed during the permit process.

It was moved by Mayor Schieve, seconded by Council Member Duerr, to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and refer Bill No. 7012 for a second reading and adoption.

Motion passed.

Council Member Duerr requested a report or update from staff on the traffic study results.

RESULT:FIRST READ [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Hillary Schieve, Mayor
SECONDER:Naomi Duerr, Councilmember
AYES:Hillary Schieve, Jenny Brekhus, Naomi Duerr, Oscar Delgado, Paul McKenzie, Neoma Jardon, David Bobzien