City of Reno
Nevada

Staff Report
4330

Staff Report (For Possible Action): LDC15-00016 (39 Ventures Materials Processing Facility) Request for special use permits: 1) to resume an abandoned nonconforming use of Outdoor Manufacturing, Processing, Assembly or Fabrication; 2) allow a nonresidential development to be located within 300 feet of residentially zoned property; and 3) to allow the use to operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (24 hours). The ±6.5 acre site is located on the southwest corner of Crystal Park Road and Quilici Ranch Road in the Community Commercial (CC) zone. The site has a Master Plan Land Use designation of Urban Residential/Commercial.

Information

Department:Community Development - Planning & EngineeringSponsors:
Category:SUP (Special Use Permit)Wards:Ward 5

Recommendation and Proposed Motion

Recommendation:  The Planning Commission recommends Council approve the requested special use permits, subject to the conditions in the staff report with modifications to Condition Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as contained in Exhibit 1 attached to this report.

 

Proposed Motion:  I move to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Staff Report Formal Body

Summary:  This is a request for special use permits: 1) to resume an abandoned nonconforming use of Outdoor Manufacturing, Processing, Assembly or Fabrication; 2) allow a nonresidential development to be located within 300 feet of residentially zoned property; and 3) to allow the use to operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (24 hours).  The ±6.5 acre site is located on the southwest corner of Crystal Park Road and Quilici Ranch Road in the Community Commercial (CC) zone.  The site has a Master Plan Land Use designation of Urban Residential/Commercial.

 

The Planning Commission recommends Council approve the requested special use permits, subject to the conditions in the staff report with modifications to Condition Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as contained in Exhibit 1 attached to this report.

 

Background:  At the November 5, 2014, Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant’s representative briefly discussed the historic use of the site as a quarry and materials processing facility; and the zone change recently approved (March, 2014) on the site from Industrial (I), which allowed the proposed outdoor materials processing facility, to Community Commercial (CC) which does not allow this use. He stated the proposed use was still appropriate for the site based on its historic use, buffering provided from limited residential uses surrounding the site and the sound study provided demonstrating that ambient noise levels including I-80 and the railroad were higher than the proposed use. The sound study indicated noise from the facility would not exceed the daytime (65 decibels) and night time (49 decibels) noise levels in code on the nearest residential uses. He further stated the site was a good location for this recycling use and would reduce truck trips on area roads by providing a source for materials for construction projects on the west side of the City when they are currently trucked in from a similar facility in Sparks. He then requested an amendment to Condition No. 6 to allow the materials crushing portion of the project to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and to allow the facility to operate 24 hours a day but only during emergencies and when supporting public works projects that are constrained under contract for hours of operation. He stated the Condition 6 amendment was appropriate because the sound study indicated there was no adverse noise impacts on surrounding residential uses. The applicant then briefly discussed that he has nine years of experience as an environmental consultant; and has operated processing/recycling materials facilities such as is proposed to reuse these materials in construction projects in lieu of sending them to a land fill. He added the project would be appropriately screened with landscaping and fencing to address the sites visual impact, which would be an improvement over the existing situation. He also indicated that he would address the existing on site soil contamination in accordance with Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) regulations.

 

Nine persons indicated they were in favor of the request. Reasons cited in favor (Exhibit 2) included: this proposal would be a start to cleaning up this area which would be beneficial to area businesses and foster new growth in the Verdi area; that the applicant was committed to cleaning up the site and would strictly comply with all the project conditions and requirements of code; the site has been used for this purpose for over 30 years; and the project would reduce truck traffic by providing a construction materials source on the west side of the City. Four persons indicated they were opposed to the project. Reasons cited in opposition (Exhibit 3) included: the project would adversely affect area property values; it would generate unacceptable levels of noise and dust on area properties; the road to the site from the freeway was not designed to accommodate the large trucks associated with the project due to tight turning radii; the truck traffic, which is ±40 trips per day, will pass by several residences which is inappropriate; there is the potential for the trucks to utilize local streets which run through adjacent residential neighborhoods; and it will adversely impact the Reno/Pyramid bike route which utilizes Quilici Ranch Road, the primary access road to the proposed facility. The attached Planning Commission minutes provide a full summary of the public comments.

 

No one else spoke for or against the proposal.

 

Discussion: In response to questions by the Commission, the applicant stated that access to/from the site would be limited to I-80 from the Verdi on/off ramps via South Verdi Road to Quilici Ranch Road. The only time trucks would use other local streets would be for local deliveries into the Verdi area. The applicant also indicated that signs would be posted at the Verdi on/off ramps to the freeway with prior permission obtained from Nevada Department of Transportation for any emergency/contractual public works operations outside of the Monday-Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. operational hours per Condition No. 7. The applicant also provided a letter (Exhibit 4) from the Tahoe-Pyramid bikeway president who believes that this project poses no significant problem for bicyclists on the road (Quilici Ranch Road) to be used by this project due to the low volume of truck traffic and low speeds.

 

In response to questions by the Commission, staff stated that the access to the site was adequate including turning radii on the local streets; that the circulation at the Boomtown interchange including use of the round abouts, which would be used for west bound trucks from the project, was designed to accommodate the large trucks associated with the project; that the Nevada Department of Transportation had no concerns related to this project utilizing the I-80/Boomtown interchange; that all drainage generated by the project would be contained within an on the site detention pond such that no drainage would infiltrate into the adjacent Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) hydro ditch or the Truckee River; that the noise study included the backup beepers for trucks and heavy equipment; that dust is required to be controlled via the standards of the Health Department Air Quality Division; and approval of the special use permit would allow only industrial uses proposed with this application. In response to questions by the Commission a representative from TMWA stated they had reviewed the project and indicated it would generate no negative impacts on the adjacent hydro ditch facility. In addition, NDEP staff stated the existing contaminated soil found on the site posed no threat to ground water and would require approval of a management plan, prior to its removal.

 

The Planning Commission then discussed the applicant’s proposed amendment to Condition No 6 regarding the days and hours of operation. After much discussion, including consideration of the findings and recommendations contained in the noise study (see Exhibit B attached to the November 5, 2014 Planning Commission staff report for LDC15-00016 beginning on page 35), they determined it was appropriate for the use to operate Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and for 24 hours but only during emergencies and when supporting public works projects that are constrained under contract for hours of operation. Other aspects of the operation such as indoor vehicle repair, office operations and other uses permitted by right in the CC zone were allowed to operate between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. seven days a week. Please note that Exhibit 1 shows the revisions to Conditions 2, 5, 7 and 8. Condition No. 6 was entirely re-written by the Planning Commission, therefore, its final form with no revisions is shown in Exhibit 1.

 

Advisory Commission Vote:  Seven in favor; none opposed; none absent.

 

Financial Implications:  None at this time.

 

Legal Implications:  None at this time.

Meeting History

Dec 10, 2014 12:00 PM Video Reno City Council Regular

ITEMS F.5.1 AND F.5.2 WERE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.

Mayor Schieve asked if proper notice was given.

Interim City Clerk Beaty-Benadom stated that proper notice was given on both items, and 29 letters in support and 3 letters in opposition (including a petition with over 121 signatures) were received for item F.5.2.

Mayor Schieve opened the public hearing.

Council Member Jardon requested that this item be continued so that a neighborhood meeting can be held to address concerns and questions.

Ryan Kautz, applicant, agreed to waive the time requirements for the public hearings.

Council Member Brekhus asked about time requirements for the City Council to deliberate an annexation request.

Claudia Hanson, Community Development Planning and Engineering Manager, stated that the Council has 90 days to hold a public hearing on an application and 30 days from the public hearing to make a decision.

Council Member Brekhus and Nathan Gilbert, Community Development Associate Planner, had discussion regarding the process for determining ward placement when annexing property.

Council Member Brekhus asked for guidance from the City Attorney as to the role of Council Members in this process.

Council Member Bobzien identified issues he would like to see addressed: remediation of hydrocarbon contaminants; and some of the outstanding Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) issues.

Council Member McKenzie suggested inviting a TMWA representative to the neighborhood meeting on this item.

Mayor Schieve opened the public comment portion of the hearing.

The following nine (9) individuals spoke in opposition to the annexation and proposed Special Use Permits: 1) Dr. John Iliescu, 200 Court Street; 2) John Jackson, 520 Crystal Park Road, Verdi; 3) Gene Gardella, 505 U.S. Highway 40 West, Verdi; 4) Kurtis Gale, 520 Crystal Park Road, Verdi; 5) Kyle Hess, 2265 Longwood Drive; 6) Sarah Brown, 520 Crystal Park Road, Verdi; 7) Chance Reading, P.O. Box 798, Verdi; 8) Elliott Frybuck, elliottfrybuck@gmail.com; and 9) Jim Litchfield, 27 Linwood.

The following seven (7) individuals presented Public Comment Forms in opposition to the annexation and Special Use Permits, but did not wish to speak: 1) Bryli Friberly, 4193 Talladega Drive, Sparks; 2) Brian Gipson, 1460 Allen Street; 3) Amanda Prina, 1761 Glen Oaks Drive; 4) Lynn Cameron, 560 Crystal Park Road, Verdi; 5) Tyrone Coyne, 350 Goldranch Road; 6) Steven Marsh, 560 Crystal Park Road, Verdi; and 7) Stacy Hallmeyer, 350 Gold Ranch Road.

Mayor Schieve closed the public comment portion of the hearing.

Council Member Brekhus requested more background information on the business license and the Staff Report for the Special Use Permit (SUP) that was issued by the City of Reno.

Council Member Jardon suggested inviting the County Commissioner for the area to the neighborhood meeting as well.

Mayor Schieve closed the public hearing.

Ryan Kautz, applicant, confirmed that he agreed to waive the time requirements for both Items F.5.1 and F.5.2.

It was moved by Council Member Jardon, seconded by Council Member Brekhus to continue Items F.5.1 and F.5.2 to a future meeting.

Motion carried with Council Member Delgado absent.

ITEMS F.5.1 AND F.5.2 WERE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE MEETING.

A RECESS WAS CALLED AT 3:18 P.M. AND UPON RECONVENING AT 3:43 P.M. ALL WERE PRESENT. AGENDA ITEM L.4 WAS ADDRESSED UPON RECONVENING.

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