2026-10-01 - Skyway Design Review Committee

00:16All right, just if um everyone on the

00:20on the call um could just hang out for

00:22about 30 more seconds. It takes a minute

00:24for our our our Zoom camera to kind of

00:26upload everyone that's signed into the

00:29meeting. So, it's going through that

00:30now. I just want to make sure all the

00:31attendees who are not panelists um are

00:34fully in the meeting before we kick off

00:36any discussion.

01:03Okay, so we are

01:07at 501. It looks like I think all the

01:11people that have kind of pre-registered

01:13are showing up as attendees and all of

01:16our panelists are committee members are

01:18here as well. So we will kick it off. We

01:21are here today for the Skyway Design

01:24Review Committee meeting. This is a

01:26meeting that we we don't have on a

01:28regular basis. We just have them when we

01:30have an application in for a Skyway. So,

01:32I think this is probably our second

01:34meeting in 26 years.

01:38Not not uh not occurring very often. So,

01:41glad to have all of our participants and

01:43our panelists here today. We are going

01:46to start with roll call. So, if Chelsea,

01:48you can call roll please.

01:51>> All right, you got it. Hello everybody.

01:54Um, do we have Bill Thomas?

01:57>> Um, here.

01:58>> Great. Craig Maybust

02:01>> here.

02:03>> Mike Vanhon.

02:05>> Uh, Van Hton here.

02:07>> Van Hton, excuse me. Nate Hudson

02:11>> here.

02:13>> And Sean McCoy

02:15>> here.

02:16>> All right. Very good. Today's webinar

02:19link is https

02:22colonlinks.renino.gov

02:29sdbrc-10-01-26.

02:34And we do have a full quorum. So you can

02:37go ahead and begin, Angela.

02:38>> Perfect. Thank you. All right. Our first

02:41item on the agenda is public comment.

02:43This item is for either public comment

02:45comment on any action item or any

02:48general public comment and is limited to

02:51no more than three minutes for each

02:53commenter. So if there's anyone in the

02:56group chat um or I'm sorry in the

03:00attendee list that wants to provide a

03:02comment, I'm just going to ask that you

03:04raise your virtual hand and we can bring

03:06you in for comment.

03:12All right, looks like we have one

03:13person.

03:14Um,

03:16two people. Okay, so we're gonna start

03:18with Josh. I'm going to move you in and

03:22go ahead and looks like you've unmuted.

03:23So, you have three minutes and feel free

03:26whenever you're ready.

03:27>> Uh, okay. Hi, Josh Abear for the record.

03:30Uh, good evening review committee

03:31members. I am a citizen of Reno. I was

03:34born here. My grandfather was a

03:35pharmacist here. I've moved back fairly

03:38recently, but I have always loved this

03:39place. So, I'm grateful for this

03:41opportunity to oppose Jacob's

03:43Entertainment Skyways. Their ceaseless

03:45attempts to stamp their brand on Reno

03:48and claim its public space and heritage

03:50have to stop. I hope you had the

03:52opportunity to review my written

03:53comments. I use them to ground my

03:55opposition to this conditional use

03:57permit in Reno's municipal code and

03:59master plan. For these comments, I'll

04:01focus on the obvious bad faith of this

04:04application, which is an additional

04:05reason to reject it. One sentence in the

04:08application's introductory paragraph

04:10sets the tone for the entire thing. I

04:12quote, "The pedestrian walkways are a

04:14critical component to the applicant's

04:16ongoing efforts to revitalize downtown

04:18Reno by improving connectivity,

04:21enhancing pedestrian safety, and

04:23facilitating reliable access between key

04:26destinations within the Reno's Neon Line

04:28District. The insincerity here is

04:31impressive. That sentence echoes the

04:33language of the master plan, which

04:35describes the Reno we want for all of

04:37us, but perverts it to serve their

04:40private gain. These skyways are not for

04:43the public good. They improve

04:44connectivity, enhance pedestrian safety,

04:47and facilitate reliable access between

04:50destinations for the J Resorts patrons

04:52and only them. Everyone else is

04:55excluded. The public can literally take

04:58a hike. Is it any surprise that these

05:00guys think they can get away with

05:01stealing our culture and history? They

05:04want to slap a faux historic Reno Arch

05:06on their private sky tunnel and expect

05:08us to believe it's for our benefit.

05:10What's worse, that's not even how they

05:12describe the sign in their application.

05:14I quote again, "The Fourth Street

05:16Walkway will incorporate a prominent art

05:18installation in the form of the archway

05:19sign identifying Reno's neon line

05:21district. I'm sorry, but how does a

05:24ripoff Reno Arch do that exactly? That

05:26deceit alone is disqualifying. Jacobs

05:29Entertainment's obscene sense of

05:31entitlement and contempt for the public

05:33good described by Reno's master plan

05:35couldn't be more plain. This entire

05:37application is infected with it. They

05:40don't care about us. The public good is

05:42a joke to them, and our master plan is

05:44just a thing to be manipulated for

05:46profit. This is all about what's good

05:48for them and them only, just like these

05:51skyways. I beg you to reject this

05:53application. You have ample grounds to

05:55do so and the city needs to send a

05:57message that such disrespect for Reno

05:59will not be tolerated from anyone. Thank

06:02you.

06:05>> All right. Thank you, Josh.

06:08And next up, we have Farah Downey.

06:11Farah, we're going to move you over.

06:13When you're ready, go ahead and unmute.

06:15You have three minutes.

06:16>> Hi, everybody. Can you hear me? All

06:18right,

06:18>> we can. Fantastic. I always love when

06:20there's no technology issue. Okay, so I

06:23didn't have an entire speech written up

06:24or anything and I just kind of logged on

06:26quickly because I wanted to come on here

06:28in favor of Jacob's Entertainment and

06:31what they're trying to do with these

06:32Skyways. Um, I think it's a fantastic

06:35addition. I think if people are, you

06:39know, I just want to rebuttal everything

06:40the last person, I respect their

06:42opinion, is saying about how they don't

06:44care about our community and this and

06:46that, but I I beg to differ that

06:48somebody that's going to take his own,

06:51you know, well, his own financial

06:53necessities for whatever his motives may

06:55be and and invested in Reno, I mean,

06:58that's bringing our level of living to a

07:01higher standard because now you're

07:03providing jobs, you're providing

07:04housing, you're providing a a lot more

07:06than people are given credit for. And I

07:08was one of those people, if everybody

07:10remembers, that was displaced because I

07:12was the queen of downtown and the motel

07:14mama, if you will. However, you know,

07:17being treated fairly, civil, I was the

07:20one watching people without any credit

07:22to Jacob's Entertainment be be rehoused.

07:25I mean, my this gentleman spent

07:27thousands and thousands and I got to say

07:28over hundreds of thousands of dollars

07:30rehousing people. So, you know, the

07:32whole narrative of, oh, they're down by

07:34the river and Jacob's Entertainment

07:36doesn't care. I w to, you know, I want

07:38to actively say with some passion behind

07:40my voice, I was the one witnessing that

07:42not being true. So, I believe this is

07:44just another step in Jacob's investing

07:47in our community. Okay? My life has

07:50never been better since those motel came

07:52down. So, I wanted to just say, you know

07:54what, I want to show support for another

07:57step that you know what, they came in,

07:59said we're going to do this. It takes

08:01time. Step and effort take time.

08:04Development takes time. And I've seen a

08:06huge, huge difference. And yes, when

08:09you're coming from California from

08:10Truckucky, and you're on the 80, you

08:12want to see those signs. You want to be

08:14seeing the Jay Resort. And it really

08:15just brings, you know, a level coming up

08:18to all of the other, you know, casinos

08:20and motel and apartments here because

08:22people want to be here. So, you know,

08:24again, I didn't have a big old speech or

08:26anything, and I don't know if it's going

08:28to make a difference, but I just wanted

08:29to show some support for this gentleman

08:31and his crew. No matter what anybody

08:33thinks about who else supports him,

08:35they're actually making the moves.

08:36They're bettering our city. So, why not

08:39support something that's created jobs,

08:41housing, and other things that are going

08:43to bring people to Reno that are going

08:44to love it as much as we do? So, that's

08:46all I needed to say, Angela and crew. I

08:48just wanted to say thanks for letting me

08:49have my opinion, and yeah, I'm grateful.

08:53All right, we're going to move you back.

08:56Is there anyone else um in the attendee

08:59list that wanted to leave a public

09:01comment? Just as a reminder, we do have

09:03public comment at the end of the agenda

09:05as well. So, if you wanted to wait till

09:07after, you are welcome to do that as

09:09well. Okay.

09:12So, hearing or seeing no more hands

09:14raised, we'll move on to the next item.

09:16A3 is selection of a committee chair.

09:19Because this committee doesn't meet very

09:21often, every time we meet, we will

09:22likely have to elect a new chair. So,

09:25this will be just a one-time deal most

09:28likely. Is there anyone on the committee

09:30that would like to make a recommendation

09:32for chair for tonight?

09:38Don't all jump at once.

09:44>> Nominate Craig.

09:47[laughter]

09:49I think your microphone broke up a

09:50little bit.

09:53>> All right, we we have a motion for

09:56Craig. Is there a second?

09:58>> Uh, I second. Sean McCoy.

10:00>> Thank you, Sean.

10:02Any Okay. Um, we have a a motion and a

10:07second. Any discussion?

10:11Okay, seeing none, everyone, please

10:14vote. All in favor say I.

10:16>> I.

10:16>> I. Anyone opposed?

10:21Wonderful. We now have a chair. All

10:23right. And with that, Craig, I will let

10:25you I don't know if you have a a copy of

10:27the agenda directly in front of you.

10:29>> Um if you could just um do me the

10:32kindest favor. I do have the um report.

10:35It's rather long, but if you could um

10:37maybe uh I tell you what, um do it a

10:40I'll do a screen grab of it um Angela,

10:42so we can navigate through there. Okay.

10:44>> So, um I will then um um you're I'm

10:48looking at items A and B. Alpha Bravo.

10:51Is that kind of where we're at?

10:53>> Correct. We're on.

10:54>> So, I'm going to take a quick screen

10:55grab of that and then I will put it on

10:58my word document and then um I'll do my

11:02best to facilitate.

11:04>> Um why don't we do this before we get

11:06started into things um for really kind

11:09of my benefit. Um um we've we've sort of

11:12done introductions, but do we do

11:14introductions again for kind of like for

11:15the public? Um Angela, I say this

11:17because I'm not quite sure um how many

11:19tiles or how many people are in the uh

11:22virtual room. Could you give uh the

11:24committee an idea of that? I only see

11:26like nine people. So how many people are

11:29we all?

11:31>> Yes, you are correct. Yep. We have five

11:33committee members. Myself and we have

11:36Chelsea who did roll call for us. Mhm.

11:39>> We also have Jasmine who is our city

11:41attorney.

11:42>> Okay.

11:42>> Sitting on this and then Garrett Gordon

11:44who is the applicant who will be

11:46presenting.

11:47>> Okay. Great. Um thank you very much.

11:49Well um I think um we've uh

11:53introductions. I I'll introduce myself.

11:55Craig Mayst. I'm a um a professor of

11:59architecture at Tucker Meadows Community

12:00College. Um and Mike, if you could uh go

12:04from there and I'll just kind of start

12:05picking people as I see. Mike, if you

12:07could introduce yourself.

12:08>> Sure. Uh, Mike Van Hton. I am on the

12:12redevelopment agency advisory board,

12:14which is how I uh ended up on this board

12:17as an alternate, and I am a learning

12:20experience architect and risk mitigator

12:23for the state's uh public agency

12:26insurance pool.

12:28>> Thank you, Mike. Um, Nate,

12:31>> good evening, everybody. Nate Hudson. I

12:34am uh part of this committee on behalf

12:36of the American Institute of Architects,

12:38Northern Nevada. I'm a sitting board

12:40member. I've been a leader in the

12:41organization for quite a number of

12:42years. Um I'm also the associate with

12:46Tricky Mills Community College and the

12:47director of the school of architecture

12:49and I'm a partner at Formra Studio

12:51Architects here in in Reno.

12:54>> Thank you, Nate. Um Mr. McCoy, I

12:56believe, was is it Sean?

12:58>> Yeah, thanks. Uh Sean McCoy, I am a

13:01private attorney. I played with Lincoln

13:03logs as a kid. That's about the extent

13:05of my architectural background. I am uh

13:07a sitting um uh planning commissioner

13:10for the city of Reno and that is why you

13:13get me tonight. So, thank you for

13:15letting me be here.

13:16>> Excellent. Thank you, Sean. Um Bill,

13:18please.

13:21>> Hi, everybody. I'm Bill Thomas. Um I am

13:24filling [clears throat] the alternate

13:26role as a planner. Um, I'm a planner by

13:29education and experience. Um, while this

13:33is not the reason I'm here today, but

13:35I'm currently the executive director of

13:37the regional transportation commission.

13:39So, um, have a little bit of

13:41transportation knowledge, I'll share

13:43some comments and thoughts from that,

13:45but I'm here representing plan the

13:47planning world.

13:48>> Excellent. And I'll elaborate a little

13:49bit about myself. I'm also a registered

13:51landscape architect, so I'm filling that

13:53role as a landscape architect. And from

13:55there and Angela, I don't know, I don't

13:57think we need introductions from you. We

13:59all know you, Angela. Yep.

14:00>> So, um, uh, why don't we just dive into

14:03things? Um, just a summary, we've done

14:05roll call, public comment. Um, the

14:07committee chair has been um, selected.

14:10Approval of agenda. Um, I think we've

14:12already motioned that, right? We've

14:14approved the agenda. Great. Let's dive

14:15into things.

14:16>> Uh, we do not actually. Um, if we could

14:18approve the agenda.

14:19>> So, move.

14:20>> So, move. Do we have a second?

14:22>> Second. Uh discussion.

14:27All in favor?

14:30>> I

14:31>> I

14:31>> I

14:32>> I.

14:34>> For the record, um item B1, business

14:37item, review of Reno's Neon Line

14:39District pedestrian walkway application

14:42for possible action LDC26-003.

14:50With that, um, we had in our packet, um,

14:53the staff report, the exhibit A vicinity

14:56map, uh, the exhibit B RM mun mun Reno

15:00municipal code article 16 skyway and

15:02design guidelines,

15:03>> exhibit C, uh, and, uh, there probably

15:06is an exhibit D, but I think everybody's

15:08got and received their information. We

15:10all good with that?

15:13>> Excellent. Thumbs up. Um, with that,

15:17um, I guess let's just dive into things.

15:20We've got committee members with

15:21different various points of view. Remind

15:24everybody of that, you know, um,

15:26etiquette that we are, um, all

15:28professionals trying to reach a common

15:29goal, um, for the city and, um, take our

15:32charges seriously. So, with that, um,

15:35I'm going to just informally kick it off

15:36and, uh, if anybody would like to have

15:39an opening comment or frame a discussion

15:41for us, um, uh, so be it. Can I ask a

15:44question of um Angela? Maybe since this

15:48is such an infrequent group, it'd be

15:50good to know like what are you expecting

15:52from us as far as an action or emotion

15:54or whatever you want from the group.

15:57>> Do we have a presentation first?

15:59>> We do. Yeah. Maybe just a little bit of

16:01background on this. So, um kind of the

16:03the purpose of this committee is not to

16:07recommend approval or denial of the

16:09Skyway project. it's to look at the

16:12design standards um that are in the code

16:14and in that appendix B of our Reno

16:16municipal code and provide feedback. So

16:21your feedback will then go to the

16:23planning commission who makes a

16:25recommendation to city council. And so

16:27again, your your your role here is

16:29specifically to look at the design of

16:31the skyway, not to weigh in on approving

16:34or denying the skyway itself. Um to look

16:36at the design perspective. We do have

16:38the applicant's representative, Mr.

16:40Gordon. So, he's going to give a

16:42presentation and kind of walk you

16:43through the look um and for the public

16:46to see as well what the Skyway looks

16:47like. And then we'll open it up to

16:49questions from the committee.

16:57>> Uh good evening. For the record, Garrett

16:58Gordon, uh Mr. Chairman, I do have a

17:01presentation. If I could share my screen

17:02and proceed that does that work for you?

17:05>> Absolutely.

17:06>> Okay, perfect. Let's see if I can do

17:09>> and Angela, I would always like you to

17:11guide us through this on the procedural

17:13matter of things. So um thank you for

17:16that um segue.

17:17>> Absolutely.

17:25>> All right. How does that look? Can you

17:27see my presentation?

17:29>> It's still loading. Um we just loaded.

17:32We can see the uh first slide says

17:34design review committee neon line

17:36district pedestrian walkways. Is that uh

17:38sound like the first slide you are

17:39prompting?

17:40>> It is. I just went full screen on my

17:43screen. Uh does that look okay?

17:46>> It looks good, Gordon.

17:47>> Yeah, great.

17:48>> Okay, perfect. Um

17:52Okay. Well, uh again, good evening. For

17:54the record, Garrett Gordon. Uh I had the

17:56pleasure of serving as legal counsel to

17:58Jacob's Entertainment.

18:00uh with me tonight. And again, I can see

18:02my screen, but not all of you. So, if

18:05you're nodding or asking me to stop, uh

18:07please verbalize that because until I

18:10stop sharing, I can't go back to the

18:11Zoom screen. Um so, with me tonight is

18:15uh Chris Maznik from Jacobs

18:17Entertainment, uh but also Larry Walters

18:20from TBE Architects. I imagine you're

18:23going to want to ask him questions given

18:26he was the architect who designed these

18:28two skyways. uh pedestrian walkways. And

18:31let me just reiterate what Angela had

18:33said. Um tonight we're here to receive

18:36feedback um from all of you on the

18:39design. Um I had the the benefit of uh

18:43presenting a skyway a couple years ago,

18:46the last time this committee convened.

18:49Um and it was actually great. We

18:51received some good uh feedback on the

18:53design. actually incorporated some of

18:56that feedback between uh now and the

18:59planning commission. Um so hopefully uh

19:01we can get some good feedback and take

19:03it back internally and have a good

19:04discussion. I will say uh very impressed

19:07with uh the members of this committee um

19:10as far as all of your planning and

19:11design architectural experience. I look

19:14forward to a great discussion. So again,

19:17two uh application, one application uh

19:20but for two neon line district

19:22pedestrian walkways.

19:25So we submitted a conditional use permit

19:28um for two walkways. Uh they're two

19:31elevated pedestrian walkways connecting

19:33the J Resort with adjacent properties

19:35over public rideways. So you can see

19:38here in this picture, this proposed

19:39skyway extends from the J Resort um

19:43westbound over Rston that would

19:46eventually be connected into a parking

19:48garage. Um this area is zone mixeduse

19:52downtown northwest quadrant uh and

19:55certainly contemplates a mixeduse uh

19:58which this skyway would connect to. I

20:00would note uh it's not in this

20:02presentation, but it is in your packet.

20:04There is in Reno code a uh an exhibit uh

20:09it's or a table that shows where in

20:12downtown that skyways are prohibited.

20:16Couple, you know, decades ago, the city

20:18council decided in certain areas

20:20downtown there should not be skyways. I

20:23can submit to you that both of these uh

20:25pedestrian walkways are not in the

20:28prohibited area. So, they're both in

20:30areas that are permissible uh in City of

20:33Reno Code. The second uh walkway would

20:37extend uh northbound. Um you can see uh

20:41in this in this visual um that would go

20:44from again the GA Resort heading north

20:46up and over Busy Four Street that would

20:49connect to some additional development

20:51on the north side of Fourth Street. And

20:53we do believe that this will pro promote

20:56accessibility, walkability, and safety

20:58within the downtown entertainment

21:01district. I know we're just talking

21:03about design tonight, but I thought it

21:05was important just to hit a few uh

21:08master plan policies uh where this is uh

21:11supported. Um pedestrian safety,

21:14downtown development, tourism and

21:16entertainment, and accessibility. This

21:19certainly eliminates atgrade crossings

21:21at two busy downtown intersections,

21:24removing vehicle pedestrian conflict and

21:26providing a safe weatherprotected route

21:29for residents and visitors. I heard a

21:31public commenter uh mention that this

21:34wouldn't be open to the public. That's

21:35just inaccurate. Um these will be open

21:38to the public uh for use by the public

21:40uh likely 24 hours a day uh with

21:43adequate security to make sure it's a

21:45safe uh safe pathway. Number two, uh,

21:48master plan policy for growth. This

21:50supports J resource expansion,

21:52generating construction jobs, permanent

21:54hospitality jobs, and increase downtown

21:56foot traffic while delivering additional

21:59tax revenue to um to downtown. It also

22:02promotes the Arena online district as a

22:05pedestrian friendly destination. And

22:07finally, accessibility, which is very

22:09important to the master plan. This

22:11provides ADA compliant weatherprotected

22:13connectivity for all users, including

22:15those with mobility challenges, ensuring

22:17inclusive access across the connected

22:19campus.

22:21So again, the location, as you can see,

22:23the large circle in the middle, that's

22:25the currently the J Resort. Um the the

22:28first pedestrian walkway would extend up

22:30and over Fourth and connect to the north

22:32of Fourth Street. And the second uh

22:34again would extend up and over Rston uh

22:37into the property on the west side of

22:40Rston.

22:41Here's another visual, a night visual.

22:44Um you can see again this pedestrian

22:46walkway. It's a it's a people mover just

22:48moving people from uh the proposed

22:51parking garage up and over Rston into

22:54the Jay. And again on the north side

22:56just a people mover uh with we think is

22:59a a a very beautiful uh replica sign of

23:03the arch really incorporating the

23:04history of Reno and can and consistent

23:07with the theme of the biggest little

23:09city. Uh my children are fourth

23:11generation uh here in town and certainly

23:15uh we have a lot of history and can

23:17appreciate how great that is for the

23:19biggest little city uh sign to be

23:21included. Another place in our in our

23:24community. Here's another visual here.

23:27You can see this is if you're standing

23:28on Fourth Street uh looking west and

23:32that Reno biggest little city uh piece

23:35of art. Um we may call it sign, you may

23:38call it art. We think it's a little bit

23:39of both, but you can see the artwork

23:41would be proposed on both sides of the

23:44skyway and certainly well lit um for

23:47safety. And again, this is standing on

23:50Rston. Um if you're looking southbound,

23:54just to the north of Fourth Street, you

23:56can see the J on the left. Um and again,

23:58that's the proposed pedestrian walkway

24:01into the parking garage.

24:04And again, here you're standing on

24:06Forest Street um looking um eastbound uh

24:10toward the row toward downtown. And as

24:13you can see, the the uh the signage is

24:16on both sides of the pedestrian walkway.

24:20So, not get not getting too in the

24:22weeds, I know all of you are probably

24:24anxious to maybe ask our architects some

24:26questions or our team, but again, uh

24:28this is a conditional use permit

24:30application.

24:31The plant, Mr. um planning commissioner

24:34on the um committee will certainly see

24:36this again and we'll be more focused on

24:39the findings two, three, and four, but

24:41tonight we're here uh just to talk about

24:44the Skyway design guidelines and any

24:47comments or feedback any of you have to

24:49ensure compliance.

24:52And again, the Skyway design guidelines

24:54are appendix B in code and we're

24:57required to be in compliance with them.

24:59So, I have a slide kind of for each um

25:02guideline just to be overly inclusive

25:05and then make sure we have a complete

25:06record. I'm going to kind of bump

25:08through these fairly quickly. Um I know

25:10all of you have taken a look at it. I'm

25:12happy to go back and answer any

25:14questions, but just trying to respect

25:15everyone's time that you don't hear me

25:17talk uh for a half an hour um when I'm

25:20sure you want to get more into a

25:22discussion. So, the first is public uh

25:25purpose. So, Skyways offer innovative

25:28solutions. This is language from your

25:30design guidelines. Skyways offer

25:31innovative solutions for creating new

25:33space and a high density downtown urban

25:36core. Absolutely true here are offering

25:39safe access to land separated by rights

25:42of ways and other suburban areas. So,

25:44that's the purpose uh that's in your

25:46design guidelines. Uh first of all uh

25:49this pedestrian walkway absolutely is

25:51innovative solution and the downtown

25:53urban core providing accessible safe way

25:55to cross public rightways both rston uh

25:58which is certainly busy and and for

26:00street which is very busy depending on

26:03uh the time of year and the time of day

26:05and I would argue that all minimum

26:07qualitative standards are met or

26:08exceeded.

26:10So, participation of property frontage

26:13percentage for sky buildings. Um, you

26:15want to make sure that that guidelines

26:17contemplate just ownership on these

26:19blocks and we certainly own uh both

26:22sides of the blocks where the pedestrian

26:24walkway would be connected. Uh, this is

26:26not in the downtown railroad corridor

26:28and it's not in an interior railroad uh

26:31tunnel.

26:33Architectural compatibility. So uh you

26:35can see I bolded architecture

26:37compatibility is the most important

26:38element of the design guidelines and we

26:40believe we uh are compatible in that one

26:43pedestrian walkways design are painted

26:47and maintain uh compatibility with the J

26:49resort color scheme. Uh we believe an

26:51architect does as well that's very

26:53compatible and cohesive with the paint

26:55and structure and materials of the

26:58existing J Resort. uh the aluminum frame

27:00and glazing used on the pedestrian

27:02walkway to maintain that compatibility

27:04with again the same framing and glazing

27:07of the J Resort.

27:09You can see here uh we certainly think

27:11it's compatible uh with both ends of

27:14what the Skyway is connecting to

27:17and same as here uh we would send it to

27:19you. We believe uh it is uh compatible

27:22with the Jay with the architecture with

27:24the downtown uh neon uh district uh that

27:28was approved by city council in the

27:30development agreement along with that

27:31art theme. You can see the burning man

27:33art we have installed up and down fourth

27:35street. Uh certainly we believe the

27:38skyway and the pedestrian walkway and

27:40the signage is compatible with the theme

27:42of of this neon district.

27:45So street level activity opportunity and

27:48public space. So, uh, the connecting

27:50building facade at street level for the

27:52forest street walkway is limited to the

27:54vertical circulation core on the north

27:56side only and is less than a 75 ft

27:59length along the public rideway. Uh, the

28:01connecting building facade along Roston

28:04is a parking structure with again a 50%

28:06open area facing rideway. So, we do have

28:09that open um area facing on for both uh

28:13skyways. Uh B, not not applicable to the

28:17proposed pedestrian walkway. Uh I don't

28:20know if you guys you guys have really

28:21dug yet on these design guidelines, but

28:23there's all kinds of different terms.

28:24There's skyways, there's sky buildings,

28:27other sky terms. So these are not sky

28:30buildings. These are skyways. So

28:32anything related to a sky building just

28:34not applicable. Neither is C with the

28:37downtown railroad corridor. Uh and as

28:39far as uh D, not applicable to the

28:42proposed pedestrian walkways. Uh the

28:44walkways are designed to be

28:45approximately 29 ft 4 in from the

28:48nearest right of way.

28:51A little bit more detail here. Um so you

28:53can see the goal is um to really keep

28:56these as narrow as possible because you

28:58know they're it's not like it's the

29:00Atlanta skyway where we're putting sushi

29:03restaurant or it's not as if it's the

29:05Elorado Skyway that covers a whole block

29:07with uh restaurants on top. This is

29:10simply just a people mover pedestrian

29:13walkway to move people in a safe manner

29:15up and over public rights ways um in a

29:1924-hour um 24 365 day weather certainly

29:26our weather changes by the hour

29:28sometimes. And so certainly this is

29:30weather protected uh in a safe space uh

29:33getting people off these roadways and

29:35moving them in in a manner back and

29:37forth into the project. So you can see

29:40we tried to keep them as narrow as

29:41possible just because it's um a people

29:44mover. So design so continuity in the

29:49design of the new sky buildings

29:51constructed between existing new

29:52buildings. Uh we say the design of the

29:54pedestrian walkways is intended to be a

29:57complement to this color schemes, paint,

29:59aluminum frame of the J resort. We do

30:02meet all ADA code requirements. Uh

30:04design components uh do include all of

30:07these different components. Um and the

30:09renderings I've been showing we believe

30:11incorporate uh one through nine. And

30:14again, the four street walkway

30:15incorporates um a reproduction of the

30:18original Reno biggest lily uh Reno's

30:21biggest little city sign slogan on each

30:23side that really think plays into the

30:25neon district, the burning man art, the

30:29u kind of the retro look um and

30:31certainly is respecting um the the name

30:34of the biggest little city and and what

30:35our downtown is proud of building

30:38massing.

30:40Other than read this, I'll just stop

30:41here. Um you guys can take a look. Um

30:44certainly our architect is on the call.

30:46I'm happy to go back to this slide 19 if

30:48you have any questions but you can see

30:50on the right hand side it really talks

30:52about the trust structure uh the

30:55ceilings the design the mechanical and

30:57plumbing design. We believe it's done

30:59not only code compliance but in an

31:01architectural pleasing way.

31:06And again, sections 8 8 through13 roof

31:08line cornises same color palette as a J

31:11resort. We've been copying the the

31:14accents uh that also complement the J

31:16resort. Um facade breakup rhythm design

31:19with contiguous storefront glazing

31:21complimentary exterior finishes. As you

31:24saw in code there was um a comment about

31:26like tunnel, you know, a tunnel look.

31:29And one could argue the completely

31:32covering four street block that the

31:34Elorado has is a tunnel. Here I would

31:37submit to you driving under this skyway,

31:39under this pedestrian walkway does not

31:41create a tunnel effect. And keeping it

31:44translucent, being able to see through

31:46to the the sky, see through to the

31:48mountains we think is important as well.

31:51So those windows um we believe for

31:53transparency are very important and not

31:55only meets the design guidelines but

31:57exceeds them.

32:00the lighting, non-glare, non- flashing

32:02lighting. U not so there's no

32:03distractions to traffic. Um brighter

32:06lighting in the corridor area to enhance

32:08visibility. Uh we does minimize glare

32:11and light. Uh the bridge support

32:13structure support structures are not

32:15within the ride ofway. So that was

32:16important. All of those columns are in

32:19fact on private property. So no

32:20additional easements are nec necessary.

32:23Um all applicable mechanical electrical

32:25criteria are met. Um, and this does in

32:28fact meet code but also meets your

32:30design guidelines as does uh the

32:33proposed signage um incorporates uh

32:35reproductions of the original sign on

32:38each face above the roadway creating a

32:40nostalgic gateway to downtown and it is

32:44proportional we believe to the scale of

32:45the pedestrian walkway structure a high

32:48quality archway rendition no excessive

32:50glare flashing or animations.

32:53So, just closing with the last few

32:55pictures. I hope I didn't go too long or

32:58too short, but again, we're happy to

32:59answer any questions, but we really

33:01think this is quite the financial

33:03investment um into this area. We think

33:06it adds a lot of character and nostalgia

33:08to the area. Um it certainly respects

33:10the public safety component to keeping

33:12um foot traffic up and over uh two busy

33:16streets. encourages and requires

33:18development on both sides of the street

33:20as this Reno Neons line district is

33:23continuing to uh build out be built out.

33:26So with that, I'm happy to answer any

33:28questions. We have our architect as well

33:31and really appreciate everyone's time uh

33:33tonight and your participation

33:35in this process. And let me see if I can

33:39get back to the committee. Okay, there

33:42we go. Mr. Chairman, hopefully I didn't

33:43belver the point. I tried to go fast but

33:45be educational as well.

33:48>> Uh, thank you Garrett. Very, very

33:49concise. And you mentioned the architect

33:51is EZ or she. Are they in the room with

33:54you or are they on the Zoom call? Could

33:55you kind of clarify that?

33:57>> He's on Zoom. Angela, could you let in

33:59Larry Walters?

34:01>> Yep.

34:04>> Excellent. And um,

34:07>> can you hear me?

34:09>> Great. Yeah. I was going to ask to do a

34:10quick sound check and it's it's Larry.

34:12Is that great?

34:13>> Larry Walters with TBE Architects out of

34:15St. Louis.

34:16>> Thank you, sir. Um, and you were able

34:18to, I'm sure, hear the uh uh

34:22presentation by um Mr. Gordon, right?

34:24>> Yes. Yes, indeed. And I've looked at it

34:26previously.

34:27>> Excellent. Thank you so much. Welcome.

34:30>> Thank you.

34:31>> All right. Well, um, thank you Garrett

34:33again for that presentation and, you

34:35know, and kindly bumping through the

34:36slides quickly. Um uh we've got a very

34:39diverse committee that has different uh

34:42points of view and different aspects. Um

34:45um I'm going to open up the the floor

34:48for discussions. Um again um I guess to

34:51keep our eye on this that we are looking

34:54to just um give some feedback on some of

34:56the architectural design and styles.

34:58Right, Angela? So um

35:00>> correct.

35:01>> All right. Um I think um yeah if anybody

35:05would like to go first or I will start

35:07to uh kind of sort things through. We

35:10will hear from everybody kind of in a

35:11fair and equal way. Angel just to kind

35:13of give us a a time frame. Um what's the

35:16uh how long are we going for tonight?

35:18Just so I can kind of get a cadence for

35:19the meeting and everything.

35:20>> I believe we have the meeting um

35:23Chelsea, is it seven or eight? Do you

35:25recall?

35:27>> Seven.

35:28>> Seven. [laughter] Okay, great. Just to

35:29keep things in order. All right. Um, I'm

35:32just going to kind of go down the the

35:33row here if anybody would like to hear

35:35some comments or um and I think we have

35:38on resource here we have um Larry for

35:40the architecture. Um, Mike, I'm just

35:42going to kind of on my first uh tile of

35:45my screen um if we can hear from you and

35:48then I'll just go to um Mr. Hudson next

35:51and and Mr. McCoy and uh Mr. Thomas and

35:55then I'll kind of round things out and

35:57then I think we can kind of have it

35:58informal that if we can kind of uh feed

36:00off of each other comments that's

36:02personally absolutely fine. I'll be sort

36:04of like a moderator. If we start to

36:06stall out I'll kind of move us along.

36:09>> Sure. Um I do have a few questions on

36:12the the design of the skyway. Um what is

36:17the glass specified? Cuz in section 11B,

36:22it requires to be at least 52% visible

36:25light transmitting and no more than 6%

36:28reflectance. Does the glass meet those

36:31standards?

36:31>> Yes, the glass will definitely meet

36:33those standards.

36:34>> Okay, awesome.

36:35>> It's all about the transparency and

36:37obviously it would probably be a low e

36:39coating and you know, usual.

36:42>> Sure. Sure. Um, I did see the slide that

36:45uh said it met the the 50% transparency

36:49requirement for section 11B.

36:53Um, but it see the the renderings show

36:56about 9 ft of glazing in a 21 ft

36:59structure. Um, and before you you count

37:04in the the framing and the truss, it

37:06seems like that roughly equals about 40

37:08to 45%. Do you have like the exact

37:11transparency calculations for the sides

37:14of each walkway?

37:15>> I don't have the exact number, but um

37:17certainly that the 50% I don't think is

37:20an issue um meeting that.

37:23>> Okay. Um and then it seems like there's

37:25about a 7 foot solid band below the

37:29floor of the walkways.

37:33Um is there any way that underbody could

37:37be reduced a little bit to

37:39>> Oh. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay, cool.

37:41>> It's lit. Yeah, you're right. That's

37:43that can definitely be reduced to that

37:45will help on the transparency.

37:47>> Let me let me elaborate on that. Um and

37:49Mike, I might be stealing your thunder,

37:50so forgive me.

37:51>> No, sure.

37:52>> Um Larry, what's going on underneath

37:54there? Is that um it's it's rendered as

37:56a solid black um you know um object on

37:59our screen. Could you elaborate sort of

38:01you know what's going on down there?

38:03>> Hey Garrett, do you mind pulling up

38:05those sections?

38:08I think it was on that section.

38:10>> Generally speaking, it's it's mostly

38:12structure and we don't really there's no

38:15you know besides you know some some kind

38:18of uh you know drainage piping routing

38:20and so forth. There's really it's it's

38:23mainly the deck and u you know whatever

38:25minimal structure to uh to support the

38:29the bridge and we obviously have the

38:32truss in order to reduce the necessary

38:35depth at the base. Which one? Let me

38:38stop me when you This one.

38:41>> Yeah, that one.

38:42>> Yeah, right there. There you go.

38:45>> Yeah, I think

38:48um yeah, those are those are a bit

38:50exaggerated of what's required

38:52underneath, but um especially the one on

38:55the right, but um yeah, I I believe we

38:59can minimize that as much as possible. I

39:02think the goal is to uh you know express

39:05the glass more than um you know the

39:08proportion of the bottom there.

39:10>> So Craig, can I ask a question while

39:12that's up?

39:13>> Sure.

39:13>> Yeah.

39:14>> Um so just an understanding of why one's

39:1620 ft wide and the other's 15.

39:19>> Um it it really goes back to the program

39:23that Mr. Jacobs is looking to develop

39:26over at the um

39:29at the garage site. Currently, you know,

39:31there is a garage there, but you know,

39:34there there's some master plan ideas of

39:37you know, possibly conference center on

39:39top of that. Um you know, there's been a

39:41a number of iterations. Not sure where

39:43it landed, but um historically we had it

39:4620 feet in order to you know accommodate

39:50a fair uh anticipate a fair amount of

39:53traffic back and forth. So that that's

39:55where that came from.

39:58I'm not saying

40:00uh you know it has to stay there, but

40:02that's historically um where it's

40:05landed.

40:07If I can just jumping off on that, I'm

40:10not an architect, but does anybody know

40:12for comparison what the width of the um

40:16walkway is for the airport?

40:23>> I don't, but if you give me two seconds,

40:24I can find out.

40:29>> While we're waiting for that, this is uh

40:30Sean McCoy. I'm wondering I I had in my

40:33notes that the Rston bridge was going to

40:34be about 22 feet wide.

40:37Um which

40:38>> yeah that was a yeah that was a um an

40:41earlier submission and we paired that

40:44down in order to meet the guideline.

40:46>> Okay. So

40:48>> 20 ft.

40:49>> So you don't need to meet the 70%

40:50transparency under the it's just the 50

40:52because it's below it's at 20.

40:54>> Correct. Yes. Exactly.

40:57>> All right. for the committee. The

40:59skybridge at the Rio Tahoe airport is 20

41:02feet outside to outside structure to

41:05structure.

41:12>> Mike, um you can um you had the floor.

41:15Um

41:16>> sure, I have a couple more.

41:17>> Great.

41:18Um

41:20section uh 13 calls for pale off-white

41:24solid services lighter near the street

41:27with corporate colors as accents only.

41:31It was kind of hard to know exactly what

41:34the colors were in these renderings

41:35because most of them were at night and

41:37then these ones are black and white. Um

41:41what what is the actual colors?

41:44>> So again, why don't you Yeah, please.

41:46Thank you. So, um, it's it's playing off

41:49of the existing Jay. It's really, uh, a

41:52bunch of a different tones of gray on

41:55the lighter side. So, there's some

41:57lighter grays on the current J that

42:00we're playing off those mainly. Um, so

42:04it's it's mainly that light gray.

42:07>> Okay. Gotcha.

42:08>> And then you see the blue accent.

42:09>> Yeah. Yeah. That would be the the

42:12corporate color. Um,

42:16the interior lighting on the skyway, is

42:19it just going to be like static? It's

42:22non-animated and and nothing going on

42:25there.

42:25>> Absolutely. Yes, static. Correct.

42:28>> Okay.

42:30Um,

42:32well, those were my primary design

42:34questions. If anybody else has some

42:36questions,

42:37>> um I'll circle back to you, Mike, um to

42:40um when we start to elaborate, maybe um

42:42a uh a summary. Um so kind of keep those

42:45pencil down and I'll circle back to

42:47y'all. Okay.

42:48>> Okay.

42:48>> So, I'm trying to jot them down as we um

42:51go along because I think we'd probably

42:52like as a committee like to say, you

42:54know, what how we feel about the colors

42:56and etc. and how things were met. Um

42:58great. Um I if I'm good, Mike, give me

43:01not I'm gonna pivot to Mr. Hudson.

43:03>> I'm good. Um Nate,

43:06>> um thank you. So um yeah, I mean I think

43:09um reviewing the application tip to tail

43:11and and certainly um the presentation by

43:14Mr.

43:16uh Mr. Gordon. Um you guys actually put

43:19a very good package together. It's very

43:20comprehensive and I really do appreciate

43:22that. Um I think that my comments, some

43:25of them go into maybe a little bit more

43:27granularity than you're prepared for at

43:29this stage, but then some of them are

43:30actually very broad as well. Um the

43:33first just a tip on to what Mike was

43:35talking about. Um there are going to be

43:38some fire conditions that um the

43:40architect will have to abide by for the

43:43purposes of this project. Um two-hour

43:45separation between the buildings, the

43:48actual buildings and the tunnel itself

43:50to eliminate tunnel effect. Fire

43:51department is going to be all over that.

43:53Um so we just want to make sure that

43:55that's taken care of. And then similarly

43:57in the same vein depending upon the the

44:01exiting and occupancy and calculations

44:03the architect is going to do the bridge

44:05that or the skyways themselves are going

44:07to be 2 to three hour rated. Um and that

44:11could run in opposition to this

44:15narrative that we're all having about

44:17transparency. And so I was hoping maybe

44:20you know Larry could illuminate a little

44:22bit on that. How how are you going to

44:25meet the fire ratings that are going to

44:26be put upon this project and still meet

44:29the transparency conditions that we're

44:32all talking about and really wanting?

44:35>> Yeah, that is going to be that is a bit

44:37of a challenge if if it's a full, you

44:40know, 2hour plus um requirement. um that

44:45will be a little bit of a challenge um

44:48because obviously that in order to meet

44:50the that type of rating you're limited

44:53on the uh the amount of glazing you can

44:55do which works against the transparency

44:58um that we're looking into.

45:01>> Okay.

45:01>> Yeah. I mean, I would definitely ask the

45:03the the team to to really get um deep

45:08into the conditions of a fire

45:10department, make sure that um that kind

45:12of piece is checked off very soon

45:15because in my experience as a as a

45:17professional, the the image is beautiful

45:21and then when it gets down to the weeds,

45:23sometimes that changes tremendously and

45:25I don't want this to accidentally turn

45:26into a bait and switch from a perception

45:28standpoint from, you know, from the

45:30public's perception standpoint.

45:32>> Sure.

45:33>> So, so I would just very strongly advise

45:35that you um seek uh very close counsel

45:38on that.

45:40>> Um

45:40>> Sure.

45:41>> Intimac

45:43Reno are a little bit few and far

45:46between. I'm going to give you a little

45:48bit of a a tip there. I know you're from

45:50St. Louis. Um we've had some struggle

45:52getting inscent coatings approved by our

45:55local jurisdictions because it's pretty

45:57new in this community. Um, so just heads

46:00up on that. That's usually like our kind

46:02of secret card as architects. And

46:05>> yeah, because obviously we show the

46:07>> we show the expressed uh structure which

46:10of course ideally would

46:13>> have the intimac.

46:15>> Yeah,

46:15>> you are right.

46:16>> Yeah. So just just really focus on that.

46:18I would say that's the very granular

46:21stuff that um kind of just instantly

46:23comes to to my mind. Um, I think there's

46:27a couple of things that I would say that

46:29are a little bit broader. Um, while I I

46:32don't particularly um dislike the the

46:36branding of of the Reno sign, um,

46:39through public comment and and certainly

46:42reading everything that was was written

46:44in and you know, actually actually

46:45written, right? Um, I I think the city

46:48of Reno needs to decide for themselves

46:50whether or not it's okay for

46:54a private entity to take the

46:56intellectual property of the city of

46:59Reno. Um, that is the image of our city

47:02and it's not really in control of the

47:05city. is like an intellectual property

47:07infringement to me. And I think that

47:08some of the comments that are coming out

47:10of both written as well as verbal are

47:13really trying to express that but not

47:16really saying it through those same

47:17words. And so could that be fine and the

47:20city is okay with that? Sure. Um is if

47:23the city has an issue with that then it

47:25should be made known. And I think that

47:26the art as Jacob's Entertainment is

47:29talking about this thing could be a

47:31whole host of different things. I really

47:33applaud you for putting art on the

47:35building um on the skyway. I I just

47:38don't know if that's the right piece and

47:41and I know that sounds a little bit

47:42crazy, but it seems to be hitting a

47:44nerve with a lot of the the community in

47:46opposition uh to this. So, I'm wondering

47:48if there isn't a way to to kind of get

47:50around that. Um the second nerve that I

47:53think is hitting and this is a very

47:55broad design nerve is that the intent of

47:58when we get into um section five of

48:00appendix B and we talk about um both A

48:04and B um in section five I think really

48:07the intent of that code is to allow the

48:12concept of of Skybridge for very large

48:15projects exactly like Jay um there's

48:18nothing wrong with that and I think that

48:20the the connectivity, the the color

48:22tonality, the sensitivity of the actual

48:25bridge itself is one of the better

48:27proposals that I've seen and certainly

48:28if it were built, one of the better ones

48:30that exists in Reno. I'll be honest, but

48:33it kind of glances over the intent of

48:36what those two pieces of the code were

48:38there for, which is that sure, you can

48:40absolutely have these things and you've

48:43done a good job with them, but please

48:45don't forget that there is still

48:48critical importance to street level

48:49activity. Um, so when I look at the

48:51renderings, I see the renderings

48:55really focusing as you know, you know,

48:58Larry was hired to focus on the sky

49:00bridge, but I'm looking below the sky

49:02bridge and I'm not seeing all that much

49:04intent as it relates to the interface of

49:07what's left for the people who are just

49:08walking down the street. Um, I think

49:10that if the development group could pay

49:13uh a lot more attention to that and and

49:16really amplify both amenities and

49:19experience of those that choose not to

49:21take the skybridge but are walking, you

49:23know, um um uh perpendicular underneath

49:26it. Um that could probably go a long way

49:28with respect to public comment as well.

49:31And so, um, I'm obviously not the

49:34designer on this, but again, those are

49:36kind of some of the things that I I

49:38would definitely be taking into

49:39consideration to try to, um, meet the

49:42community where the community seems to

49:44to be in in this. Um, all other things,

49:48I think you guys are meeting every piece

49:50of it. I actually think that the width

49:51is very sensitive. They're very slender.

49:54Their um, transparency is amazing. And

49:57um you know like all in all I I I I

50:01don't not not support of them. I I just

50:04think that maybe some of these

50:05additional things is a situation to

50:07where people could have their cake and

50:08eat it too.

50:12>> Yeah. Those are good comments. Thanks.

50:16>> Any follow-ups on that? Um

50:18>> I have a followup on that as well. Um, I

50:20just wanted to clarify with Angela that

50:23the the sign that is going on the

50:26walkway that is separate from the

50:29Supreme Court ruling that uh mentioned

50:32that they could have identification

50:35signed Archway, right?

50:37>> Correct. Yeah. Just um for the public's

50:40kind of knowledge, when the Neon Line

50:43District was created, they had a

50:45separate agreement. It was a development

50:47agreement and as part of that they were

50:49given three area identification signs

50:52and those are very specific to the

50:54location. Um this is not one of those

50:57signs and there was a a court case of of

51:00whether or not we could have area

51:01identification signs. So that totally

51:04separate issue. Um but just because it

51:06says Reno, that is not one of the area

51:10identification signs. So this is

51:11completely separate from that.

51:15Thank you, Mike. Um, any other

51:17follow-ups on uh Mr. Hudson's comments?

51:21Um, Larry, do you have any, you know,

51:23follow up on on any of that or you're I

51:25assume you're jotting some notes down. I

51:26want to make sure.

51:27>> Yeah. No, I'm just taking notes and

51:29Yeah, we'll, you know, obviously uh work

51:32with the owner to

51:34>> continue to develop it.

51:36>> Awesome. Thank you.

51:37>> I follow we're talking about just the

51:39arch right now,

51:42if

51:42>> that's all right. Yeah, absolutely.

51:44Sean, go for it. Yeah.

51:46>> So, I I just want I really appreciate

51:48that clarification on the area

51:50identification sign because the

51:52application um when I read the

51:54application, I thought it specifically

51:55identified this as an area

51:57identification sign. So, um I was a

52:00little bit confused. Um there's uh

52:03there's been quite a bit of public

52:04comment about the arch. Um and I

52:07understand, you know, some of that's

52:08going to go beyond what we're here

52:09tonight. So, I'm going to try to keep

52:11this narrow. Um but when I'm looking at

52:14page 85 86 of the um uh meeting packet

52:21in both views

52:23my eyes go straight to the arch. Um now

52:27the guidance says the signage is

52:29supposed to be uh complimentary to the

52:31skyway. It's not supposed to dominate

52:33it. And you know I I'll admit my

52:36experience in this realm is is limited.

52:38So, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be

52:40seeing um in these pictures that shows

52:42the arch is complementing the bridge

52:44instead of being the main feature. Um

52:47but my initial reaction just looking at

52:49these pages is that the arch is the

52:51first thing I see. Uh my eye goes to it

52:53before it goes to the bridge. Um and I

52:56understand why that's drawing some

52:58public comment. Um but since the

53:00guideline says it should complement the

53:01skyway rather than dominate it, I do

53:04have concern um with this part of the

53:06design as shown. night. I would prefer

53:08to see the arch play a a smaller visual

53:11role compared to the bridge itself, but

53:13that's just kind of my my feedback on um

53:16on the arch.

53:17>> Is it the scale of the arch that is the

53:20the issue and not so much the design?

53:22Like if it was just smaller um attached

53:26to the skyway, would that

53:28>> I I think I think for tonight's

53:29discussion, I think just we're just

53:31looking at the the complimentary and not

53:33domination. um regardless of what the

53:35actual sign says. Um yeah, I think that

53:39the scale for me is just it it's just

53:41and and I I I like that. I mean, don't

53:44get me wrong, my my it's pleasing to to

53:46the eye, but that that that sign

53:48dominates and to me it just that's the

53:50first thing I see. Everything else kind

53:52of blends away. And so if the the the

53:54role of the sign is to just complement

53:57um and then I would imagine scale would

53:59would would be the the fix. Can I ask a

54:02question follow up to that?

54:04>> Absolutely.

54:05>> So, I guess uh Garrett and Larry um and

54:08I hadn't really thought about this when

54:10I did my review, but this conversation

54:12has brought up a kind of big picture

54:14question of what is the intent. It looks

54:18like most of the design is to make them

54:20transparent, so they're not really

54:23there, right? as opposed to if you think

54:25of the um Atlantis they have huge flames

54:29and they have these things on them to

54:31draw your attention to them so everybody

54:32knows it's there. Same thing with the

54:35silver legacy like it's a statement

54:37whereas these two seem to be you know

54:40they're they're a crossing that helps

54:42the whole uh function of the ultimate

54:45resort work well but to what degree is

54:49the sign critical to it and the second

54:52thing is to follow up what Angela said.

54:53I know it was controversial because it

54:55went all the way to the Supreme Court to

54:57get the neon district um signage to

55:00actually approve. So is this but this

55:03isn't one of those signs. So what is the

55:05value of this sign in the context of

55:07what you're trying to achieve in that

55:10whole neon line corridor?

55:14Maybe I um Larry maybe I'll defer to you

55:17on the design but um member Thomas let

55:20me can address that. So development

55:23agreement was approved and in there

55:26there was an approval of three area

55:29identification signs. One at the corner

55:31of Keystone and Fourth, one and Archway

55:35um a little bit more further down the

55:38Golden Silver, right? It was really kind

55:39of between Washington and Keystone. Uh

55:42and then a third one which was along um

55:45I 80, a highway um a highway

55:48identification site. Scenic Nevada filed

55:52a lawsuit. Um they were really more

55:54focused on the highway sign and whether

55:56or not it was a billboard or not. Um

55:59they threw in the other signs as well.

56:01Just kind of a catch all. It's you know

56:03try to stop all of them. Um the Supreme

56:05Court confirmed that these are area

56:08identification signs and the city has

56:10the right to approve them to not only

56:12approve these three but to approve even

56:14more. But more specifically that the

56:16highway sign is not a billboard. it's an

56:18area identification sign so we can move

56:20forward with a building permit. So that

56:23said um those three signs are legally um

56:27suitable in the development agreement.

56:29Um we certainly have a right or anyone

56:31in the city has a right to apply for

56:33another area identification sign you

56:35know asking forident identifying an

56:38area. We thought, and Larry, I'll let

56:39you jump in on the design, but you know,

56:42just having this skyway, pedestrian

56:45walkway go over fourth. We just thought

56:47it was pretty cool, like pretty unique

56:48to have um you know, it's a it's a neon

56:51district. Uh it has a lot of artwork. It

56:53has kind of a retro feel. Um we've

56:56gotten feedback from others in the

56:57community. They like the Reno, biggest

56:59little city in the world, you know, uh

57:01extending that out a little bit um to

57:03welcome people to downtown coming off of

57:05Fourth Street. So, if if there's a lot

57:07of push back from this committee, we're

57:08happy to take it back to ownership to

57:11say take it off. They just want the

57:12Skyway and just the side of the Skyway

57:14to look as is. But we just thought it

57:16was kind of a cool element um that

57:19really uh does a good job of again

57:22supporting and emphasizing the culture

57:24and the name branding of of this area.

57:27So, I don't know, Larry, if I missed

57:28anything, but I think that's the that's

57:31the that's the response.

57:33>> Yeah, I mean I'd just add in that Yeah.

57:35I mean I mean uh Jacob's Entertainment

57:37their whole the whole goal was with the

57:39neon line is really creating kind of an

57:42arts district um you know that that uh

57:46is a great amenity for Reno downtown and

57:51this is just kind of adding on to that

57:53that vein and and pulling in you know

57:56what is a nostalgic

57:59um sign that maybe historically didn't

58:02go in this location but it's certainly

58:05um a very beautiful and cool um

58:08remembrance of of uh um a great sign

58:11that that did exist in the downtown

58:13area. And playing off of it, uh the

58:17whole design ties into, you know, those

58:20the structure um on on the two sides of

58:24Fourth Street that are, you know, not

58:26just, you know, traditional

58:28um you know, pilasters or um um columns.

58:33their their architectural, you know,

58:35elements that tie into the signage. So,

58:38it's it's all a composition and it's

58:42it's a bold statement. That was the

58:43whole point is to be a bold statement.

58:46Um um and I I guess you know you could

58:50argue that it does go a little bit

58:52against the so-called complimentary

58:55um aspect of what the code says but you

59:00know when you're trying to make you know

59:01you're trying to make a bold statement

59:03um that's where you go and it ties into

59:06uh the overall feel of the um of the

59:10neon line district.

59:13And if I may just elaborate, it's

59:16expensive, right? That adds a lot more

59:18expense. And so, you know, we thought

59:20kind of giving back to Reno and the

59:22nostalgic part of it would be would be

59:24uh pretty cool. We're Jacobs is not

59:26trying to take credit for that slogan.

59:27Is not trying to take ownership of that

59:29slogan, just add another location where

59:32you come into town and see the slogan

59:34and come into downtown. So, we're happy

59:36to get take the feedback though, for

59:38sure. So, thank you everyone for your

59:39comments on that piece. So

59:41>> just just follow Oh, go ahead. Sorry.

59:43>> Um yeah. Um Mike, I'll make a statement

59:45and then um we'll throw the mic back to

59:48Sean. We've sort of kind of um so I

59:50might have some more things on the list.

59:51So Mike, myself and then we'll go back

59:53to Sean.

59:55>> Go ahead, Mike.

59:56>> Oh, I was just going to say another um

59:58suggestion would be following up on what

1:00:00Nate was mentioning about um copyright

1:00:03issues and general public outcry. There

1:00:05could be a way to design this to look

1:00:08retro without necessarily exactly

1:00:11replicating the old Reno sign. Even

1:00:14something as simple as changing the

1:00:15hexagons to like circles or something

1:00:17like that uh for each of the Reno

1:00:20letters. So just a a suggestion on that

1:00:22um to maybe reduce the the amount of um

1:00:26you know public backlash.

1:00:27>> Thank you, Mike. And then um if you

1:00:29would allow me to go um they'll get back

1:00:32to you, Garrett. Okay. Um, my suggestion

1:00:35too is with the whole Fourth Street.

1:00:37Fourth Street has a rich history in um,

1:00:39Nevada. Um, you know, it's the Lincoln

1:00:41Highway. There's some opportunities as

1:00:43an educator. I'll put on my educator

1:00:45hat. We're always asking the students

1:00:46why, how and why did you come up with

1:00:49and that and there's certainly a rich

1:00:51bucket of information um on the Lincoln

1:00:54Highway and the whole neon era um, after

1:00:56the post-war prosperity. So, um there

1:00:59are some avenues there that um seems to

1:01:01be sort of a touch point um for a lot of

1:01:03people. Um I'll kind of just leave that

1:01:05and curb that there and I'll um Garrett

1:01:07had his hand up and then I'll go back to

1:01:08Sean.

1:01:10>> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just uh

1:01:13we don't believe there's any trademark

1:01:14issues um you know wi with with this um

1:01:18just f FYI, we don't think we're

1:01:20infringing on anyone's mark and would

1:01:22have a right to to to put this up. Just

1:01:24to make that clear.

1:01:26>> Thank you, Sean. you were um on a list

1:01:29and um want to make sure that we've

1:01:31allowed you time to to have your

1:01:33comments.

1:01:34>> Uh yeah, thanks. I mean, I'm I'm kind of

1:01:37looking to move past the uh the art sign

1:01:39if that's okay or if we wanted to.

1:01:42>> I don't know where. Okay. Um so, I

1:01:45wanted to kind of go back to something

1:01:46Garrett had said at the beginning and I

1:01:49just wanted to make sure that um I heard

1:01:51that right. So, the intent is that both

1:01:53walkways are to be open to the general

1:01:56public 24 hours a day, not just J resort

1:01:59guests or event goers. Um because I

1:02:03thought that I heard that's what you

1:02:04said, but I don't I don't want to.

1:02:08>> Yeah, thank if I may if I may respond,

1:02:11Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, Member

1:02:13McCoy, for the question.

1:02:15Yeah, those walkways would be open to

1:02:20the public to allow the public to walk

1:02:23from for the rston one, walk from a

1:02:26parking garage into the J. Um, and then

1:02:30from the J northbound over Fourth Street

1:02:34into the additional J amenities. So, uh,

1:02:38a lot of some of those, um,

1:02:42uh, pass, some of those pedestrians will

1:02:44maybe be hotel guests. Some might be

1:02:47coming in to enjoy dinner. Some might be

1:02:50popping in for a drink before they head

1:02:52to the festival grounds for a concert or

1:02:54the J the Glow Plaza, you know, for a

1:02:56concert. Or hopefully someone comes in

1:02:59from California and goes, "What's going

1:03:00on in downtown Reno?" and just walking

1:03:02around to explore. So it would be open

1:03:05and a different uh customer experience

1:03:08for everyone.

1:03:10>> Okay, that's so that's the general

1:03:11public like 247 that's the idea or do

1:03:14you expect any type of limitations? I I

1:03:16guess I guess what I should ask next is

1:03:18is there anything in the design that

1:03:20would allow you to close these walkways

1:03:22off at at J Resort's kind of discretion.

1:03:26>> I would say I mean Larry can answer the

1:03:29question, but I don't think there's any

1:03:31design mechanism, but uh it's still

1:03:34technically private property, right? So

1:03:36you could put a rope up and and block it

1:03:39off if you needed to for any reason. Um

1:03:42but I don't envision that would happen.

1:03:44I I can't imagine when that would

1:03:46happen, but we would have a right to

1:03:47close it down. That would be true.

1:03:50They're not they're not public, right?

1:03:52They're still just like your driveway to

1:03:54your house. It'd still be private

1:03:56property, but it's certainly open to the

1:03:59public to come use the facilities.

1:04:01>> Yeah. There's not been any discussions

1:04:03with the owner about um closing it down.

1:04:06I think the comment about, you know, a

1:04:08rope, you know, or something like that

1:04:10is about the extent that I could

1:04:13imagine. Okay. So, there's no intent in

1:04:15your mind right now to have these

1:04:17operate 18 hours a day, 20 hours a day.

1:04:21That's that's not in your your plan for

1:04:23now.

1:04:25>> No, I think consistent with this is in

1:04:28the downtown entertainment district.

1:04:29This is a 24-hour district. They'd be

1:04:3124-hour walkways.

1:04:33>> Awesome. All right. Great. Thank you.

1:04:34>> Great. Good comment. Anything else,

1:04:36Sean?

1:04:37>> Uh, yeah. I just from reviewing

1:04:41um kind of how we're supposed to look at

1:04:43how this bridge connects um when I look

1:04:46at the rston picture on page 84 it shows

1:04:49the garage is already there um but the

1:04:52plans identify that obviously as future

1:04:54right if you go down there right now

1:04:56they don't exist um so what we're doing

1:05:00tonight what are we supposed to kind of

1:05:02treat as part of the proposal to kind of

1:05:05does it actually um you know work well

1:05:09with that design when we analyze this um

1:05:11how does it fit when we're looking to

1:05:13see how it fits together what am I

1:05:15supposed to consider

1:05:17I'd like to bring that back to Angela

1:05:19Angela I always had that same question

1:05:20as well you know um if the if we're

1:05:23looking at con contextual situation and

1:05:25we're changing the context of the

1:05:26parking garage and one's here today and

1:05:29one's not or one's not there today and

1:05:30then it comes in tomorrow um can you

1:05:33elaborate on that for us give us some

1:05:34guidance

1:05:35>> yeah and I think that's a that's a great

1:05:37question. I don't know that we have a

1:05:38good black and white answer. Um, I think

1:05:41you can look at it from a couple

1:05:42different ways in terms of the

1:05:44neighborhood that's there now. There's

1:05:46not a lot of buildings there. Does it

1:05:48fit in with the J Resort building? Um,

1:05:51does it fit in with anything in the

1:05:53general area? You know, if you took like

1:05:56UNR has a Skyway sky bridge for

1:05:58instance, and you know, it's it connects

1:06:01a brick building to campus which is a

1:06:03very brick design. Um so when we were

1:06:06looking at the design of that one we

1:06:08said okay generally speaking the UNR

1:06:10campus is you know kind of a brick theme

1:06:13um very different theme from this part

1:06:16of town where we don't have a lot of

1:06:18brick. So from a bigger broader

1:06:20perspective I would say look at it from

1:06:22a neighborhood perspective and from the

1:06:24buildings that it's connecting. Um we

1:06:26don't know what it will connect to. You

1:06:28know, generally speaking, we think it's

1:06:30going to be a parking garage and you

1:06:32know, Garrett, you have more insight of

1:06:34the timing of all of that. Um, but we do

1:06:37know that it will connect to the J

1:06:38Resort. So, we know what that building

1:06:40looks like and does this fit in with the

1:06:42theme of that building.

1:06:44>> I guess what I'm I'm after is to um

1:06:47frame the conversation with um a couple

1:06:50things in mind. One, you know, parking

1:06:52garage isn't there. Had a similar

1:06:54question of what's, you know, what's

1:06:56what's north anyway? Why are we

1:06:57extending across the north? I see just a

1:06:59vacant lot and in the renderings I see

1:07:01pools and I see all these other

1:07:03amenities and I'm like I'm so I'm sort

1:07:05of I don't want to say misled, but I'm

1:07:07sort of confused. Um so I'm I'm wanting

1:07:09to frame these and isolate these and

1:07:11that these are contextual comments that

1:07:13we're making and if the context changes

1:07:15then maybe the committee is reconvened

1:07:17and and and that kind of goes in lines

1:07:20with the uh Mr. Hudson's comment of when

1:07:22we start to get these you know um

1:07:24dealing with the fire and the fire

1:07:25separations and you know we don't want

1:07:27to have this bait and switch sort of

1:07:28thing so that we we are looking at

1:07:30something but this something might

1:07:32change you know um what's your thoughts

1:07:34on that Angela? Yeah, when when this

1:07:37project, assuming it goes to planning

1:07:39commission, city council, and it's

1:07:40approved with the design that we're

1:07:42looking at today or any changes that are

1:07:44made, when they actually come in for a

1:07:46building permit, we'll compare what was

1:07:48approved through the conditional use

1:07:50permit and the renderings to what is

1:07:52shown on the building permit. So if it's

1:07:54something that's different and we say

1:07:56this isn't substantially in conformance

1:07:58with what was approved by again planning

1:08:00commission, city council, your guys's

1:08:02feedback, then we have the ability to

1:08:04say you need to go back and amend your

1:08:07application and then you guys would get

1:08:09to vote and you know provide feedback at

1:08:10that point

1:08:12>> and that'll be part of your report um

1:08:14summarizing kind of what we deal with

1:08:16today, right?

1:08:17>> Yes. Yeah. So, all of your feedback,

1:08:19we're taking notes and we'll share that

1:08:20with the planning commission and city

1:08:21council and that'll be part of the

1:08:22record.

1:08:23>> I think that's helpful for us all to

1:08:25sort of frame this and then really kind

1:08:26of explore the design as it looks today

1:08:28and not go down the road of like, well,

1:08:30it could be this or could be that. So,

1:08:31thank you. That's very clear.

1:08:33>> Yes.

1:08:33>> Um Sean, I'll I'll bounce it back to

1:08:35you. I know you're kind of got some

1:08:36papers you're shuffling. Um how we doing

1:08:38over there? Do you want some more

1:08:39comments or

1:08:40>> Yeah, I've got I've got some more and

1:08:42thanks um Angel that helps. Um when I

1:08:45was looking at this I was like am I

1:08:46supposed to analyze the bridge to

1:08:47nowhere or is there you know are we

1:08:49supposed to just look at one half of the

1:08:51bridge which is the existing J building

1:08:53I just I I highlighted when I read

1:08:55through the guidelines um architectural

1:08:58compatibility is the most important

1:09:00element of the design guidelines. And so

1:09:02for me you know my concern is that we

1:09:05were missing you know we're missing some

1:09:07of the picture here. And so um you know

1:09:10I that's that's kind of where I was. It

1:09:12seems like the garage is still kind of a

1:09:13concept. Um, so I'm struggling to kind

1:09:16of use that as a a picture that the

1:09:18bridge um fits the building it will

1:09:21connect to. Um I I do think that part

1:09:23needs to kind of be judged against

1:09:26what's there now. Um or if the garage

1:09:29dage design becomes final, then then we

1:09:31look at that. But um I'll move on from

1:09:33the um from from that. Only had a couple

1:09:36more things I wanted to just kind of

1:09:37ask. um the tunnel effect that kind of

1:09:41came up uh tonight. Um and I really

1:09:44appreciate the uh daytime pictures. I

1:09:47think we're at 83.

1:09:50>> Mhm.

1:09:50>> Um I think I think that really th those

1:09:53are really helpful to me. Then the

1:09:55nighttime because um I can kind of see

1:09:57what the bridges look like, you know, uh

1:09:59during the day. Um, so there was it was

1:10:03I think it was one of the slides

1:10:04earlier, but I was wondering if maybe

1:10:06Garrett or maybe Larry can just talk to

1:10:08us about um what elements you're using

1:10:12to try to help prevent or

1:10:14[clears throat] reduce the tunnel effect

1:10:16um on on the bridges. um you know, does

1:10:20the glass make it feel like, you know, a

1:10:23solid box or, you know, just what are we

1:10:25what are we doing um with this with this

1:10:28design to try to help prevent the tunnel

1:10:30effect? You can

1:10:31>> I I can take that. It's Yeah, it's

1:10:33really the glass is there, especially

1:10:36during the day. You're going to you're

1:10:37you're going to be able to get views

1:10:39through. So, it's, you know, more of a

1:10:42uh you know, a lacy whatever transparent

1:10:45feel to it. So you're you're really um

1:10:48it's not a heavy box that you're looking

1:10:50at. Um you're you know you're looking at

1:10:53a much lighter um structure and then

1:10:56you're also looking at the proportion

1:10:59the the proportion of the thing is is

1:11:02fairly slender and you know it's not not

1:11:04got a very much of a footprint. It's

1:11:06within the the width guidelines um which

1:11:10which then allows you to put more glass.

1:11:12Um so you're you're really you know it's

1:11:15both the proportion and the amount of

1:11:16glass that um really reduces the tonal

1:11:20effect. And then there's also, you know,

1:11:22there'll be uh some careful

1:11:25consideration for lighting. Um because,

1:11:27you know, we'll be um certainly lighting

1:11:30um you know, carefully the interior

1:11:33space so it doesn't dominate um but also

1:11:36the underside of of the and then up you

1:11:38know probably uplighting or you know um

1:11:42uh casting light on the bottom of the

1:11:45bridge so so it's not dark as well. And

1:11:47then um that's required to provide some

1:11:50light on this on the roadway as well. So

1:11:53I think all those things help to

1:11:54eliminate or pretty much eliminate the

1:11:57the tunnel effect.

1:12:00>> Okay. And that that actually leads into

1:12:02my my final question which is about um

1:12:04the the lighting of the bridge.

1:12:06Obviously at night you can see those

1:12:08strong blues. Um are you still able to

1:12:11kind of see the blues? I see the

1:12:13proposed kind of daytime bridge here on

1:12:14page 84. Um, is is is that what you plan

1:12:20the lighting to look like during the

1:12:21day? Like will it will it be lit up

1:12:24during the day as well or um is that

1:12:27some other type of coloration on the on

1:12:30the on the bridge? I think what we

1:12:32looked at is um is potentially carrying

1:12:36across the um the blue LED that would be

1:12:41it would be static but you know that

1:12:43kind of brings across you know some of

1:12:46that language of from the J. Um but it,

1:12:50you know, it would not be a color

1:12:52changing one cuz uh for the you know the

1:12:54this distraction issue, but um um

1:12:59lighting wise um during the day that uh

1:13:04you know it just be mostly the interior

1:13:07lighting of it and then possibly a

1:13:09little bit on the roadway as needed, but

1:13:12I don't see any on the facade

1:13:15specifically.

1:13:16>> Okay. I just want to make sure that the

1:13:18um I want the bridge the bridge needs to

1:13:21work in the daylight as well. Like the

1:13:23design of it, it's got to look, you

1:13:25know, if it looks great at night, it it

1:13:26it should also look good during the day.

1:13:28And that's why I was asking about the uh

1:13:30what kind of, you know, color lighting

1:13:32might might be there. So, I I appreciate

1:13:34that.

1:13:34>> And then it's got the it's got the light

1:13:36gray um also to kind of lighten it up

1:13:38and um pop a little bit more during the

1:13:42day.

1:13:43>> Okay. All right. and chair, I'll uh I'll

1:13:46give it back to you. Thank you.

1:13:47>> Great. Thank you. Any uh um followup um

1:13:50with Mr. McCoy's comments?

1:13:53>> I I have a followup on his comments

1:13:56regarding um uh you know, how to

1:13:59determine what the Skyway is actually

1:14:03connecting to. Um, on the Rston one, if

1:14:07you don't build a parking garage, are

1:14:10you and it ends up being just a terminus

1:14:13or something and a parking lot, is it

1:14:15still going to be ADA compliant with

1:14:17elevators? And is there an elevator in

1:14:19the north terminus

1:14:22of the

1:14:23>> Okay.

1:14:23>> Yes, that is correct. There is there is

1:14:25an elevator in the north terminus

1:14:28building. Yes, correct. And that would

1:14:29be the case if there was not a garage.

1:14:32But um that has been a garage for quite

1:14:37a while and it's been in the ma his you

1:14:40know the the Jacob's team's master plan.

1:14:42>> Sure.

1:14:42>> Um for quite a while

1:14:44>> and just a question for Angela, why are

1:14:47we reviewing this so early? Because it

1:14:49is kind of difficult to understand what

1:14:52it connects to. Um, wouldn't it be more

1:14:56prudent to do this after they submit the

1:14:59permit? And are they going to submit the

1:15:02garage and the skyway as a a combination

1:15:04permit? Because you can't really build

1:15:06the skyway without the garage, at least

1:15:07in these renderings.

1:15:09>> Yeah. So, um, for initially, you can't

1:15:13submit a building permit for this

1:15:14project until we've approved the skyway.

1:15:17>> Put the building permit on hold. Um, and

1:15:19Garrett, I don't know if you want to go

1:15:21into timing of when you plan to come in

1:15:24for the parking garage

1:15:27for a permit for that piece of it.

1:15:29>> Yeah, Mike, thanks for the question. Um,

1:15:31timing is is still up in the air. Um,

1:15:33obviously, we need this approval um to

1:15:36then spend the additional money on

1:15:39finalizing um construction drawings and

1:15:42permit drawings and construction sets.

1:15:44But I can say that staff is very astute.

1:15:47One of our conditions of approval, which

1:15:49you haven't seen, I don't think, um, is

1:15:51that there has to be something built on

1:15:53either side. It has to, the skyway has

1:15:55to connect to something, right? We can't

1:15:57just build it where it's a skyway to

1:15:59nowhere. So, if it's a permitted use,

1:16:02um, we go to building permit. Um, if

1:16:05it's not a permitted use, we'd have to

1:16:06come back through some discretionary

1:16:08approval, but we do have to construct on

1:16:10on both sides. And if approved, this

1:16:12goes up to us the certainty now to go

1:16:15finish the design and spend the money

1:16:16to, you know, go fabricate it and build

1:16:18it.

1:16:20>> I get that. I just I don't understand

1:16:22how we could determine that it um meets,

1:16:26you know, the the conditions for the

1:16:28buildings that it connects to if we

1:16:29don't know what it's going to connect to

1:16:32yet. Could could we could we think of it

1:16:35as a progression in that whatever it

1:16:38turns into the other buildings then have

1:16:40to conform to?

1:16:44So you've got the first piece which is

1:16:46the existing J resort and number two

1:16:48would be the bridges and then number

1:16:51three would be the terminus buildings.

1:16:54And so each of them have to conform to

1:16:57the next but in that order. Do do you

1:16:59see what I'm saying?

1:17:00>> I do. But is that accurate, Angela,

1:17:04because it seems like in the it seems

1:17:06like the the bridge has to conform to

1:17:08what's currently there?

1:17:10>> Yeah,

1:17:12I think those are all really good

1:17:13comments, stuff that we're kind of

1:17:14working through on on the conditional

1:17:16use permit review as well. Um, at the

1:17:20end of the day, what we we know now is

1:17:22this is the design they want to go with.

1:17:24So, we can provide the feedback on that.

1:17:26When they come in for a building permit

1:17:28for the the parking garage or whatever

1:17:31it's going to attach to, we would say,

1:17:33does that fit with the skybridge that

1:17:35has been approved, assuming the

1:17:37conditional use permit is approved. And

1:17:38so that gives us the staff a little bit

1:17:40more flexibility to say again like wow

1:17:43you've got a you know a craftsman style

1:17:45parking garage that is nothing like your

1:17:48skybridge. Let's go back and you know

1:17:50and revisit if that's conforming to what

1:17:52was approved and the the reasons the

1:17:55findings that that that we were able to

1:17:57make to approve the sky bridge. And

1:18:00those findings are those those um design

1:18:03reviews on the parking garage that's

1:18:05with any kind of permit, not just like a

1:18:07conditional use permit.

1:18:09>> No. So, um specific to the the findings

1:18:12for a conditional use permit and the

1:18:13skybridge, we're looking at

1:18:15compatibility. That's not something we

1:18:16look for at a building permit, but

1:18:18because it triggers this conditional use

1:18:20permit, those are the things we're

1:18:22looking at.

1:18:22>> Got it. So, anything that connects to it

1:18:24is also subject to the conditional use

1:18:27permit,

1:18:27>> I would say, in a way. Um, yes and no.

1:18:30Right. We'd go back and say your

1:18:32building permit,

1:18:34well, let me go back. In order for

1:18:37planning commission and council to make

1:18:39the findings that this skybridge is

1:18:41compatible, we'd have to say when that

1:18:44building comes in, if it doesn't look

1:18:46anything like what we're seeing today,

1:18:48we'd say, how were we able to say that

1:18:51skybridge was compatible when now this

1:18:53parking garage that we didn't look at

1:18:54before looks nothing like the building I

1:18:58mean the sky bridge? So, we would take

1:18:59that into consideration. Again, it's

1:19:01kind of a nuance thing. This is not

1:19:03something we would normally we don't

1:19:04review a lot of sky bridges. So these

1:19:06these are all kind of unique situations.

1:19:09Um but definitely we have the ability to

1:19:11say that parking garage doesn't you know

1:19:15we wouldn't have approved this sky

1:19:16bridge knowing the parking garage looks

1:19:19nothing like the sky bridge. We don't we

1:19:21can make that connection.

1:19:23>> Okay.

1:19:24>> Great. Thank you. Um any other

1:19:25follow-ups? Um Garrett? Yes, please. if

1:19:29it's helpful from the applicant and Mike

1:19:31it's a great question and Nate you

1:19:33touched on as well or sorry committee

1:19:34members Hudson and Van Hen um I I would

1:19:38acknowledge that the the the design

1:19:40review guidelines don't go away after

1:19:43today right like that compatibility

1:19:46requirement is still there and needs to

1:19:48be applied of what's built on the other

1:19:50side of the pedestrian walkway so I

1:19:53think you're hopefully should have some

1:19:54reassurance that staff will look at

1:19:56those guidelines if and when uh the

1:19:59connector on the other side of the

1:20:00building comes other side of the walkway

1:20:02comes in um it has to look feel

1:20:05compatible to design hopefully is

1:20:07approved in this process. So I want to

1:20:09put that on the record as the applicant

1:20:11to hopefully get you all comfortable

1:20:12that we understand what you're saying

1:20:14and agree with it.

1:20:15>> Mr. I appreciate that. I appreciate any

1:20:17other follow-ups. If not I'll I'll um um

1:20:20go to Bill.

1:20:24>> Thanks. So, um, my first couple of, um,

1:20:28comments really are based on my

1:20:30knowledge over the years of how we got

1:20:32to this process and that we're even

1:20:35doing this tonight. And I would say that

1:20:38my initial reaction when I look through

1:20:40it is that the fact that these skyways

1:20:42are designed principally to blend in and

1:20:46not draw attention to themselves like I

1:20:48mentioned earlier, you know, huge flames

1:20:50on the um Atlantis covering a whole

1:20:53block. So I think they meet that intent

1:20:56which was the fear and I believe was the

1:20:59catalyst for having this process. So I

1:21:02think that's a good thing. I think the

1:21:05fact that they aren't the dominant thing

1:21:07when you're in the place is critical in

1:21:10terms of what we're trying to achieve

1:21:11here. I do have a couple questions

1:21:13though, Garrett, on the placemaking in

1:21:17the context. So, you know, Mr. Jacobs

1:21:19has done an amazing job of turning

1:21:21around what was a very

1:21:24um distraught and dysfunctional area of

1:21:28town by his assemblage and changing the

1:21:31use of it. But one of the things that uh

1:21:34seems to be transformative, but I don't

1:21:36know if it's really settled, like is

1:21:38this going to be a permanent thing is

1:21:40Four Street. Like what is Four Street

1:21:42going to be? We all know Virginia Street

1:21:44historically was the cruising street

1:21:46that had all the casino lights. It was

1:21:48kind of unique. Um it doesn't have any

1:21:50sky bridges over it. Traditionally,

1:21:53that's like where the special events

1:21:54were. Um parades, things like that. I

1:21:57know starting this year I think with the

1:21:59Fourth of July parade um we started

1:22:03moving four street in this area to maybe

1:22:05a different purpose going forward. So my

1:22:08first question is is there going to be

1:22:11any limitation or challenge to

1:22:14repurposing Four Street into a major

1:22:17community corridor by putting the um

1:22:20Skyway over Fourth Street in this area?

1:22:27Uh, thank you, member Thomas. Really

1:22:28appreciate the question. Yeah, you're

1:22:30right. I mean, traditionally, South

1:22:32Virginia Street was what's closed down,

1:22:34right, for the Italian festival and for

1:22:36the chicken wings and for hot August

1:22:39nights and, uh, Forest Street continued

1:22:42to be, you know, open and, you know, a

1:22:44very viable in and out coming from the

1:22:46west side of town. Um, we love the fact

1:22:48that there was the Fourth of July parade

1:22:50along here. Uh there was a pretty cool

1:22:52art show too along here as well. Um I

1:22:56can say pretty confidently that just the

1:22:58height of the pedestrian walkway

1:23:00certainly wouldn't interfere with any

1:23:02parades or any fire trucks or anything

1:23:05coming in and out to continue it. And I

1:23:07think it probably uh enhances it, right?

1:23:09If let's say Virginia Street is shut

1:23:12down for a parade or an art, you know,

1:23:15an art show or a car show or whatever

1:23:17else we have, rather than a bunch of

1:23:19people queuing on crosswalks that's

1:23:21happens on Virginia Street to get back

1:23:23and forth, you have a nice uh pedestrian

1:23:26walkway over the top of events. So I

1:23:29would submit to you it does complement

1:23:32uh if and when Fourth Street becomes

1:23:34more of an event centric corridor.

1:23:38So along the same lines, um I know you

1:23:41know between RTC, the city of Reno and

1:23:44Jacobs, there was quite a bit of

1:23:46investment in the street lights and that

1:23:48those are animated and designed in such

1:23:50a way that they can be have motion,

1:23:53color changes, things like that. What's

1:23:55the vision for? Because the lighting in

1:23:58the picture shows it matching. What's

1:24:01the what how is the lighting on the

1:24:04skybridge going to relate if it is at

1:24:06all to those kind of events when the

1:24:09lights are changing and making that neon

1:24:12corridor be activated? Like is the

1:24:14bridge going to be part of that? Is is

1:24:16the light activation and the motion and

1:24:19the and I don't even know what those

1:24:21concepts are. I just know we have street

1:24:22lights that are unique that are allowed

1:24:24to be changeable for special events and

1:24:26special reasons.

1:24:28>> Yeah, that's a great point. We're really

1:24:29excited about those lights. I mean, they

1:24:31look they look great. Um, to my

1:24:34knowledge, and Larry, jump in here, or

1:24:35it might be a comment, Bill. I'll have

1:24:38to get back to the planning commission

1:24:39on it. Um, I don't believe that the the

1:24:43Skyway lights are tied to the same

1:24:46mechanical system as the RTC for street

1:24:50lights, so they wouldn't sync up

1:24:52automatically. But I believe we would

1:24:54still retain the ability on the skyway.

1:24:57If, for example, it's St. Patrick's Day

1:24:59and all the poor street lights turn

1:25:01green, I would think we would be able to

1:25:03turn the skyway green to match it. I

1:25:06might be totally wrong. They might be

1:25:08blue and they're always going to stay

1:25:09blue or whatever color Larry suggests,

1:25:11but I'll I'll get back to you, but I

1:25:13think it would be cool if it all synced

1:25:14together given the investment RTC made.

1:25:17>> Yeah. I mean, I think I think the

1:25:20>> um the initial design intent was that it

1:25:23was static because we were trying to

1:25:25meet the intent of the code of not being

1:25:27distracting. But if you know, if it's

1:25:30not color changing ongoing while you're

1:25:32driving, if it's more of a static for

1:25:36St. Patty's, it goes green with the rest

1:25:38of the Jay or whatever, I think that

1:25:41would be cool. So, I think, you know, I

1:25:43think it's open for discussion. Um, but

1:25:45I think the in the code it was the

1:25:48comment about the distraction that was a

1:25:50bit of a concern.

1:25:53>> Well, the downside of having us is you

1:25:54get to hear our opinion. So, I'll share

1:25:56my opinion. Um, I think that and this

1:26:01may be part of the conflict with the

1:26:03arch part. I think making it part of the

1:26:06whole corridor is impactful in the same

1:26:09way that historically all the twinkle

1:26:11light, everything about Virginia Street

1:26:13when it used to be the place to go

1:26:14because it was so unique and trying to

1:26:17replicate that with the Neon Line

1:26:18District. I think if the um Skyway was

1:26:22limited, it might stick out more than it

1:26:25would if it was part of it. You know, in

1:26:27terms of what's going on in the street,

1:26:28like you're saying, green lights or

1:26:30whatever it is. you don't really want

1:26:31the bridge to draw attention because

1:26:34it's totally different. That that's just

1:26:35my opinion. I mean, ultimately the city

1:26:37is going to have to decide that working

1:26:39with Jacobs. But just something um that

1:26:42you know was a question that came to

1:26:43mind for me.

1:26:46>> Thanks Phil.

1:26:46>> Uh the other question well so for street

1:26:50just to share um my vision I guess and

1:26:53view of what the future of four street

1:26:55is. Um and I think it's kind of pretty

1:26:58much the the dy has been cast. So, it is

1:27:00the car street for downtown coming from

1:27:03the um west. I mean, that's been decided

1:27:07in great part by the biggest little bike

1:27:08network and fifth street becoming a bike

1:27:11corridor, Third Street. I don't think

1:27:13we're doing that, but there's still

1:27:14probably ongoing discussion over that.

1:27:16So, I think it's clear that cars are

1:27:19going to be the dominant thing on Fourth

1:27:21Street. In addition, probably sooner

1:27:24than later, it'll be part of the bus

1:27:25rapid transit route that will go out to

1:27:28Stoker at a roundabout and the buses

1:27:30will come back. So, you'll have buses

1:27:31running, you know, best case every 10

1:27:34minutes through that corridor. So,

1:27:36there's going to be a lot of vehicular

1:27:38activity on Fourth Street. Um, I would

1:27:41say that's probably a justification for

1:27:43having the pedestrian crossing here. The

1:27:46other thing that I would note that's

1:27:48different from other areas and also

1:27:50something that's a unique consideration

1:27:52for the city is the [clears throat] the

1:27:54walls the short kind of pony you know

1:27:574ft walls that run along four street

1:28:00that have the lights in them. Um it it

1:28:03creates basically the neon line, but it

1:28:06also precludes unless at some point when

1:28:08the land's developed there's some

1:28:09openings, any kind of midblock openings,

1:28:13which is better for safety because you

1:28:15don't have people coming out of a

1:28:16building midblock crossing over. And I I

1:28:20think the worst case example we try to

1:28:22we would want to avoid is Calva where

1:28:24you have this sky bridge where you have

1:28:28a casino dumping out under the sky

1:28:31bridge and you have a parking lot that

1:28:32accesses the sky bridge. So you and you

1:28:35have the lights from the natural light.

1:28:38Everything about that is very dangerous

1:28:40in my opinion. And so any way we can

1:28:42avoid that I think would be good. I

1:28:44don't think you have that because of

1:28:45those white walls and the lighting. Um,

1:28:48I think the bigger challenge is going to

1:28:49be long-term and a lot of it's Jacob's

1:28:51property is how are you going to

1:28:54activate Fourth Street with the future

1:28:57developments. You know, is it going to

1:28:59be openings where those walls are or

1:29:01people going to go to the corners? As a

1:29:03transportation person, I'd love

1:29:04everybody to be pushed to the corner

1:29:06because that's where you have control

1:29:08with traffic signals, but it does make

1:29:10it a challenge for people moving east

1:29:12and west as far as pedestrian activity

1:29:14on Four Street. Um the other question I

1:29:18had or the last couple questions which

1:29:20were were specific is um getting back to

1:29:23that Calva issue

1:29:26uh when you look at Rston there isn't a

1:29:29solid there's a fence there on the west

1:29:31side and then there's a self park exit

1:29:35entrance and exit not necessarily right

1:29:38underneath the sky bridge but near it.

1:29:41That would be a question I would pose to

1:29:43the city to look at that carefully to to

1:29:45make sure you don't recreate a Calva

1:29:48situation. Um, right there. Um, and then

1:29:51last thing, I was a little confused on

1:29:53the rston part. It looked to me like a

1:29:56piece of the building was going over the

1:29:59street.

1:30:01Is the building actually going to jut

1:30:03over the public right away in that area?

1:30:07So, um I think you're talking about the

1:30:09some of the materials that were

1:30:11submitted. So, there was a rendering of

1:30:14a potential future building that may

1:30:18encroach partially over Rston.

1:30:21>> It was like a banquet space or something

1:30:23in one of the

1:30:24>> correct. I think we showed a site plan

1:30:26of kind of what what could be in the

1:30:28future, but certainly we'd have to have

1:30:31an encroachment agreement with the city

1:30:32and certain, you know, approvals moving

1:30:34forward. But we're just trying to be as

1:30:36transparent, as open as possible what

1:30:37what might be there. And we think a

1:30:39banquet space would be a pretty good

1:30:41use.

1:30:42>> So that's not really part of this

1:30:43conversation. Okay.

1:30:45>> No, it's we we're looking at the skyway.

1:30:47Right. Right. Bill, 100%. Yeah.

1:30:51>> Um

1:30:51>> unless you wanted to tack on an

1:30:53improvement for approval for an

1:30:54encroachment, I wouldn't oppose it.

1:30:56>> Well, I was going to say since you own

1:30:58both sides of the road, why don't you

1:30:59ship the road over? Then you can have

1:31:01the land if you need it or the area you

1:31:02need it. So, that would be my comment as

1:31:05far as the building, not the skyway, but

1:31:07the building. Anyway, um

1:31:10I think the last thing and just I'm sure

1:31:12they'll be dealt with by the city, but

1:31:15making sure that

1:31:17um the sky bridge particularly on Fourth

1:31:20Street, which has a lot more traffic, is

1:31:23designed in such a way to minimize any

1:31:25impact to traffic signals. And um I know

1:31:29because it faces due west um there's

1:31:32always a challenge that evening sun like

1:31:35where if it if it does shadow what

1:31:39happens to drivers is there's a brief

1:31:41shadowing that then you get hit directly

1:31:44by the light so it can create a safety

1:31:46risk and I think that's probably a

1:31:48better reason for another reason for it

1:31:50to be trans um loosened so you don't

1:31:53have like light no light light anyway

1:31:56it's is a it's a technicality, but it's

1:31:59something to be aware of in terms of

1:32:01people driving along the street. So,

1:32:02with that, that's all I have.

1:32:04>> Thank you.

1:32:05>> In response to the traffic thing, I just

1:32:08The good news is these are planned more

1:32:10midblock, so they're, you know, they're

1:32:12they're at least away from the corner

1:32:14where the traffic signals are. So, that

1:32:17at least is helpful.

1:32:21>> I think that the height, but I'm sure

1:32:22somebody can look at it, right? like

1:32:23what's a car doing sitting at a signal

1:32:25minute? When does it get to see the next

1:32:27one? But I'm sure that'll be a technical

1:32:29thing that the staff will look at.

1:32:32>> And u Mr. Chair, if I can just chime in,

1:32:34I misspoke earlier. I thought the Zoom

1:32:37meeting would end at 7. We actually have

1:32:38till 8. So if you guys pressure, you

1:32:42have till 8.

1:32:42>> I was sweating a little bit. So thank

1:32:44you for that. Um great. Um any

1:32:46follow-ups that we've got on kind of the

1:32:48threat of conversation with member

1:32:49Thomas?

1:32:53I'll jump in for a second. I I just want

1:32:55to say I I appreciate kind of the

1:32:57insightfulness as it relates to um the

1:33:00fourth street corridor. I think um the

1:33:03observation that it will be the

1:33:05vehicular center of kind of our east

1:33:07west corridor is probably correct and in

1:33:10recognition that it is a bus rapid

1:33:11transit line. I just want to make sure

1:33:14that we all understand too that anytime

1:33:16we move the conversation of buses into

1:33:18this now you're also moving the

1:33:20conversation of pedestrians into this.

1:33:22So even though it's hyper vehicular,

1:33:24there's a good chance that it's also

1:33:26going to be hyper pedestrian. And those

1:33:28two when mixed cause some trouble. So,

1:33:31um, one of the things that I'm kind of

1:33:34going to go back to just very briefly

1:33:36from a a conceptual design standpoint is

1:33:40any investment that Jacobs can can offer

1:33:43this project in that of the actual

1:33:46street side, the street corridors, I

1:33:49think will help with some of those

1:33:51things. There's a whole host of of

1:33:53designs that can be done. And I think

1:33:55Bill was was astute to talking about um

1:33:57some separations, occasional uh you know

1:34:00breaks in those walls such that it

1:34:02doesn't feel just like a giant uh

1:34:04raceway that you need to get across. Um

1:34:07the other piece which does tie to um uh

1:34:10ties to Mr. McCoy's comments which has

1:34:13to do with the public nature of the

1:34:16bridges themselves, the skyways

1:34:18themselves. If you are a patron of J

1:34:20Resorts, then the Skybridge or the

1:34:23Skyway is very accessible because that

1:34:26is your destination or your or return.

1:34:29But if you're not and you're just a a

1:34:31passer by, then that kind of conflicts a

1:34:34little bit. So when we look at the

1:34:36rendering on uh page 78, the nighttime

1:34:39rendering that goes over Fourth Street,

1:34:42and the recognition that the north block

1:34:43is really not super developed right now,

1:34:46it has an elevator core. or it drops

1:34:48down to the street level. Certainly

1:34:50encourages some street activity there.

1:34:53If that type of gesture were done on the

1:34:56south side of the street as well, I

1:34:58think then there's a conceptual idea

1:35:01that pedestrians

1:35:03totally free of charge, right, could

1:35:06potentially use this to cross fourth

1:35:08street. Um that is a potential option I

1:35:12think as well that maybe it should be

1:35:14considered. Um if that's not considered

1:35:18then um you know those types of like

1:35:20very public scenarios are not considered

1:35:22then then I really do strongly feel that

1:35:25um really focusing on streetable

1:35:29walkability of fourth street itself is

1:35:32going to be critical to the success of

1:35:34this project so it doesn't just feel

1:35:35like a freeway underneath the thing. Um

1:35:38I know it's a very brief little bridge,

1:35:40right? But I we we all kind of know

1:35:42where that corridor is going. And I

1:35:44think um when we're talking about

1:35:46festival or festivals and the potentials

1:35:48of parades and pedestri all these

1:35:50things, right? The pedestrian influence

1:35:53there is going to be greater in the

1:35:55future, not less. And so any investment

1:35:57that is done on that street level, I

1:36:00think will yield dividends for the the

1:36:02success of the project and the

1:36:03betterment of our city.

1:36:07Thank you. Um, member Hudson, any other

1:36:10follow-up comments?

1:36:13>> Just backing up on what member Hudson

1:36:15said. I know we're not really supposed

1:36:17to get into

1:36:19whether the Skyway is a good, you know,

1:36:21planning decision or not, but I do like

1:36:24the idea of having a a terminus on the

1:36:27south side, too. Um because I think the

1:36:31expectation that this is going to reduce

1:36:34uh street traffic is is really only

1:36:37going to be for the people who are going

1:36:39into the J Resort. It it's a very very

1:36:43you know private uh use. And so I just

1:36:46kind of add that if if it I think it

1:36:49would also benefit Jacob's Entertainment

1:36:51to have a terminus on the south side

1:36:54because people would then use the bridge

1:36:58um to cross the street um to get to Glow

1:37:01Plaza or or or you know festival grounds

1:37:04or things that are um not necessarily

1:37:07the the building centric.

1:37:11>> Thank you. Member Ben. Um

1:37:15any other thoughts on that thread of

1:37:18>> Yeah, this is member McCoy just just

1:37:20kind of final thought here and that's

1:37:22the code specifically is asking us to

1:37:24consider street level pedestrian

1:37:26activity. Um I do think that the final

1:37:29design should be mindful of how people

1:37:31are going to enter, how they're going to

1:37:32exit um and interact um with the street

1:37:36at both ends of the skyways. I I think

1:37:38that's something that needs to be

1:37:39considered and um that's why maybe you

1:37:42know I I harped on it a little too much

1:37:44earlier just trying to understand the

1:37:47intent and who is going to be able to

1:37:48use this because if we're looking at

1:37:50pedestrian level activity if this is

1:37:52limited to Jes customers I don't see

1:37:55that benefit um you know as as strongly

1:37:57as it as it would otherwise. So just

1:38:00something to keep in mind.

1:38:01>> Yeah I think I think you said that very

1:38:02well because I'm feeling kind of in the

1:38:04same space. Um I think um Mike you

1:38:07mentioned that this isn't really our our

1:38:09area. It's about the sky bridge and

1:38:11that's absolutely true. That is what

1:38:12we're being presented but we can't

1:38:14ignore what the code is actually saying.

1:38:17>> I agree

1:38:17>> a whole section of it in there that

1:38:19really leans on this and and and I and

1:38:22you know when we read public comment

1:38:24they're clearly leaning on it too. So I

1:38:27I I don't think it can be avoided

1:38:29unfortunately. It's like part of the

1:38:32same

1:38:32>> No, I get that. You know,

1:38:33>> I get that. It just brings the broader

1:38:35questions of like what is the pedestrian

1:38:38activity right now? And you know, I

1:38:41think that would be a question even for

1:38:42the city council. Is is this even a

1:38:45necessity for the project, which is one

1:38:47of the findings? And so,

1:38:51>> excellent. Excellent. Um, by chance, um,

1:38:55Angela, am I able to screen share?

1:38:58[clears throat]

1:38:58>> Yeah. Do you know how to do the the

1:39:00share on the bottom? That green?

1:39:01>> Yeah. Yeah. Am I okay to do that? Um,

1:39:04are we okay if I pivot to my comments,

1:39:06y'all? Is that all right?

1:39:07>> Yeah.

1:39:08>> I'm going to be sort of short and

1:39:10succinct. Um, I'll just sort of make the

1:39:12caveat that a lot of people have

1:39:13addressed my comments as well. So, I'll

1:39:15dive into some areas that maybe we

1:39:17haven't discussed and um, bring those

1:39:19up. Um, I will share my screen and um,

1:39:22oh mercy, we've got many of them here.

1:39:24I'll go to screen. I think I'm going to

1:39:26go to screen three and I'll share and

1:39:29you should be seeing the word street

1:39:32trees, right? Do you see that?

1:39:35>> I see your PDF.

1:39:37>> Yeah.

1:39:37>> Oh, PDF.

1:39:40>> Okay, I'm going to stop the share. I've

1:39:41got three monitors, so I apologize. I'm

1:39:44trying to dodge between them all. So, um

1:39:47there we go. We should see um I'm

1:39:49sharing in the process. Share. Come on.

1:39:52There we go. share says um street trees.

1:39:56>> Yes.

1:39:57>> Excellent. Thank you so much. Um uh so I

1:40:01was looking at some of the details of

1:40:03this uh some of the images. Um the um

1:40:08image that we're looking at right now is

1:40:09called the present day image. Um I'm

1:40:12questioning just the scale and the

1:40:14accuracy of it. And I was trying to look

1:40:16for the pedestrian sidewalk and I'm not

1:40:20sure if I see the pedestrian sidewalk. I

1:40:22see maybe um where my cursor is some

1:40:25plants that maybe really don't grow in

1:40:26Reno. Um and then I've got this small

1:40:29little looks like mo curb and I don't

1:40:32know what that is. Is that supposed to

1:40:33be the sidewalk? And then I've got this

1:40:36cheek wall and then um can can maybe

1:40:39somebody comment on that? I'm and the

1:40:41reason why I'm bringing this up is we

1:40:42latch on to these visual images so much

1:40:46even more so than the written word. And

1:40:48I'm just wanting some more explanation

1:40:50on this and what I'm looking at.

1:40:52>> Chairman, do you mind scrolling down a

1:40:54little bit further below the term where

1:40:56below it says present day image? You

1:40:59keep going. So that was the intent

1:41:01there. The present day image. There's

1:41:03your present day image right there.

1:41:04>> Yeah. Okay. And so I'm not seeing Can we

1:41:08work on the scale on these? Because that

1:41:10doesn't look like a sidewalk to me. It

1:41:12looks like just a mo curb.

1:41:15>> Yeah. I think there's a little artistic.

1:41:17Yeah, it's supposed to be a sidewalk

1:41:18presentation there.

1:41:20>> Yeah, it's supposed to be a sidewalk and

1:41:21I would encourage the applicant to drop

1:41:23in people and drop in vehicles and cars

1:41:26so that we get a sense of scale on where

1:41:28things are going and we can get a better

1:41:30feel for really the scale of the

1:41:32project. Um, and I would say that on

1:41:35both left and right of the street

1:41:36because it sort of gets washed out on

1:41:38the lefthand side of the street. So,

1:41:40just a little bit more um less artist

1:41:43[laughter]

1:41:44embellishment, a little bit more on the

1:41:45accuracy part. Um, I would also ask that

1:41:49same sympathetic narrative about the

1:41:50trees. The trees, in my opinion, aren't

1:41:54really I mean, they're just they they

1:41:56don't look correct to me just with the

1:41:57scale of everything. Um, yeah, they just

1:42:01were dropped from a catalog into the

1:42:03image and it it helps me appreciate the

1:42:06scale of everything when I can look at

1:42:08the surrounding entourage.

1:42:11Sorry to beat that up. Um, so that

1:42:14that's one comment that I've got uh is

1:42:17to and I think that's sort of a comment

1:42:19throughout all of them. Like the

1:42:20nighttime images look very flashy and

1:42:22glitzy, but I'll echo one of the members

1:42:24comments that I maybe got a little more

1:42:26value out of the daytime images. Um, but

1:42:29again add some more entourage. Entourage

1:42:31were defining that as kind of the people

1:42:33in cars and a little bit more accuracy

1:42:34to the renderings if I if I could ask

1:42:37for that.

1:42:39Cars in the parking lot, etc. Um, moving

1:42:42along. I was looking at I was actually

1:42:44doing a column study. I like, ah, wonder

1:42:47what kind of columns you guys are doing.

1:42:48And I see in this particular image, it

1:42:51looks sort of like a Y shaped column,

1:42:53which I'm like, okay, that seems to make

1:42:55sense. Then I go down to this one, and

1:42:57I've got a a rectangular column with a

1:43:00cutout in it. And then I go to the um uh

1:43:04arch and it's got I'm not sure what kind

1:43:07of columns these are, whether they're um

1:43:10uh castle-like things or um not sure

1:43:14what we're doing there. So I think a

1:43:16little bit more detail if you're going

1:43:17to move forward with this idea. Maybe a

1:43:20little bit more clarity on what these

1:43:21actual details look like. Um I can't

1:43:24really get a good feel for what you're

1:43:25trying to express with these particular

1:43:28columns.

1:43:29And maybe they're supposed to be tall

1:43:31green um arborvites or something, but um

1:43:34it looks like they're structural

1:43:36columns. Is is that right?

1:43:38>> They are. They're structural.

1:43:40>> Okay. If we can get a little more

1:43:41clarity on that. Um they're just a

1:43:43little fuzzy to me and I don't really

1:43:45understand how and where they came

1:43:47about. Um so it's not making a lot of

1:43:50sense to me.

1:43:51>> Try me, if I may. Um th those are

1:43:54actually depictions of the original 1964

1:43:58arch.

1:44:00Thank you, uh, member Hudson. I would

1:44:02love then to see like, um, some the

1:44:04reason why, and maybe you're showing

1:44:06images of those,

1:44:07>> you [clears throat] know, kind kind of

1:44:08help the storyline.

1:44:10>> Um, and the rendering was really fuzzy.

1:44:11I I probably would never pick that out.

1:44:14So, thank you, Member Hudson. I

1:44:15appreciate that.

1:44:17>> Um,

1:44:19that really again, I don't want to beat

1:44:21the drum on what everybody else has

1:44:23echoed. Um, those are my comments and

1:44:27um, I will bring it back to um, Angela

1:44:30to see how you'd like to maybe summarize

1:44:33our thoughts and how things are unless

1:44:35anybody wants to follow up on my

1:44:37comments.

1:44:39And Larry, I could give you a chance to

1:44:41defend your renderings, but um, I think

1:44:43maybe uh, if you if you want to do that.

1:44:45>> No, I'm fine. I all I can say is a

1:44:48little bit of artistic uh, license

1:44:50there.

1:44:51>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm an artist as well and I

1:44:53get that. So, um, yeah, maybe a little

1:44:56more accuracy on that. So, that'd be

1:44:58that'd be great.

1:44:59>> Angela.

1:45:00>> Yeah, I was just going to say my lights

1:45:01went out. Speaking of lights, um, yeah,

1:45:03[laughter]

1:45:05>> I have about three pages of notes that I

1:45:09took today. So, for kind of moving

1:45:12forward again when it goes to planning,

1:45:13commission, and council, we will include

1:45:16all of those notes that'll say, you

1:45:17know, here's notes that each of you

1:45:19said. general themes will also summarize

1:45:22among the group. I think there was

1:45:23actually a lot of um things that you all

1:45:26agreed on whether you you know

1:45:28individually said it or as a group kind

1:45:30of said oh yeah I think that too. Um so

1:45:32we'll summarize all that and include

1:45:33that with the planning commission and

1:45:35council packets.

1:45:36>> And again you guys don't have to

1:45:38formally vote. There's no yes or no.

1:45:39This is I think really [clears throat]

1:45:41good feedback for all of you with kind

1:45:42of very different perspectives.

1:45:44>> Um it's always fun to have a bunch of

1:45:46you know design-minded people and and

1:45:48Mr. McCoy, well,

1:45:51not design- minded, but you had a lot of

1:45:52the same opinions that they did. So, it

1:45:54was good to get that information um from

1:45:56the small group.

1:45:59>> Do we need a motion or anything?

1:46:00>> You do not.

1:46:01>> Okay. And we have to share with

1:46:03>> Yeah.

1:46:04>> And when we'll we'll acknowledge you um

1:46:06Mr. Gordon in a minute, but Angela, it

1:46:08sounds good. I think um Angela, it goes

1:46:10safe to saying that a good chunk of the

1:46:12thread of conversation was again framing

1:46:14contextually our comments with what is

1:46:16what we're looking at today and that

1:46:18variance that might happen visually as

1:46:20the as this project moves along. And um

1:46:23yeah, look forward to you being a good

1:46:24steward to our comments and the project

1:46:26as well.

1:46:27>> Y

1:46:27>> I believe Mr. Gordon had his hand up.

1:46:30>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Um appreciate your

1:46:32comments and also um Mr. Thomas is if I

1:46:35can share my screen one last time.

1:46:40I I this rendering I think was part of

1:46:44our presentation. But I think as far as

1:46:48uh you know trees etc. But I think this

1:46:52is a little different than what was in

1:46:53your packet. I think this is the more

1:46:55realistic photo. Um you can see the

1:46:57sidewalks etc. Um some artistic

1:47:01expression as well. But I also want to

1:47:03emphasize uh Bill, this shows your art

1:47:06the RTC lights. So I just wanted to give

1:47:08the committee that perspective of those

1:47:10are the lights that were installed. Um

1:47:13and you can see they change color. And

1:47:15it just kind of emphasizes Mr. Thomas's

1:47:18point that if the the skyway has the

1:47:22opportunity to align with and match, you

1:47:25know, those lights, um it might be a

1:47:27really cool feel for the area. So

1:47:29hopefully that was helpful, Mr. chairman

1:47:30thought that rendering um could be um uh

1:47:34kind of a close out for our

1:47:35presentation.

1:47:37>> It's so thoughtful of you, Mr. Gordon.

1:47:38Um yes, and um you know, with a couple

1:47:40people in there just so we can kind of

1:47:41get an idea of scale and you know, a

1:47:43couple cars thoughtfully placed, I

1:47:45think, um you know, um that would go a

1:47:47long way.

1:47:49>> Perfect. Thank you, sir. Appreciate the

1:47:51opportunity.

1:47:53>> Thank you, uh Mr. Gordon, and thank you,

1:47:55Mr. Walters. Um um it's probably um what

1:47:58two hour time difference from where

1:47:59you're at. Is that right,

1:48:03>> Mr. Walters? Yeah, you bet.

1:48:05>> Oh, maybe it was [laughter] so getting a

1:48:07little late on your end. Um

1:48:10we that maybe we lost you already.

1:48:12[laughter]

1:48:12>> No, I'm here.

1:48:13>> Okay. Well, thank you. Um uh just a

1:48:16shout out to the committee. I think

1:48:17we've um Angela, you feel good about

1:48:19what we've come up with?

1:48:22>> I do. I'm just going to share the

1:48:24agenda. We do have a couple more agenda

1:48:26items

1:48:27>> and that part was clipped off. So, um

1:48:29>> that was my bad.

1:48:30>> Yeah, I know. It's it's Yeah. So, public

1:48:32commission me committee member reports.

1:48:33Do you want to talk about C or and then

1:48:36I can go to D and then

1:48:38>> Yeah. I feel bad. This is such an odd

1:48:41committee, right? It's not like we meet

1:48:42monthly and have updates for the group.

1:48:44But just for an update on this

1:48:46particular agenda item in terms of next

1:48:49steps, this will be going to planning

1:48:51commission on October 14th

1:48:55and then city council tenatively October

1:48:5921st. So October is going to be a big

1:49:02month. Um any updates based on this

1:49:04meeting, changes to the renderings,

1:49:06they'll include and that will be part of

1:49:08the planning commission packet.

1:49:10[clears throat]

1:49:11>> Excellent. Um, public comment. Um, were

1:49:15you done, Angela? I'm sorry.

1:49:16>> Yes. All done.

1:49:17>> Thank you. Thank you. Um, public

1:49:18comment.

1:49:20>> Is there a time limit on the public

1:49:21comment, by the way?

1:49:23>> Um, just three minutes per person. So,

1:49:25I'm just look and see. Again, reminding

1:49:28our attendees in the meeting, if you do

1:49:30want to speak, feel free to wave your

1:49:33virtual hand and we'll bring you over.

1:49:37And at this point I'm not seeing any. So

1:49:40I think we can move on to adjournment.

1:49:44>> Oh here look for a motion. So move

1:49:48>> second.

1:49:49>> All right. Um I think that's discussion

1:49:52too wrapped up in there as well. So um

1:49:55we will look forward to um having you

1:49:57keep us apprised and updated on

1:49:59everything, Angela. And uh if we need to

1:50:01bring the band back, I'm sure everybody

1:50:02would be uh more than happy to join in

1:50:05and see how the project moves along.

1:50:07>> Wonderful. Thank you everyone.

1:50:09>> Thank you everyone. Appreciate your

1:50:10time. Have a good night.

1:50:11>> Thank you. You too. Bye. Bye. Bye.