Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 1:00 and I will call this meeting of the Douglas County Planning Commission to order. I am Moren Casey, vice chair and I am doing this meeting noting the absence of our chair Paul Bruno. Lori, will you please lead us in the pledge?

Please repeat after me. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Lori. It is now time for opening public comment. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker on matters over which the planning commission has jurisdiction. The planning commission wants to encourage respectful consideration of all views by members of the public. If content is disruptive, disrespectful, willfully misleading, or offensive, the individual will be told to stop speaking. Public comment will also be taken on agenda items that are identified for possible action and we will have closing public comment. It is the chair's prerogative whether to allow comment on presentations and today I will allow comment on item number three. I will allow open public comment or I will now open public comment. Please sign the roster. Say your name for the record into the microphone. First speaker, please. Good afternoon, Ellie Waller. I'm here to uh speak about a Tahoe uh issue, the glamping project at 176 US50 Zephr Cove entitled 53. Um, it's a year-round glamping project. Um, there's a marketing description because the project is for sale. Here's another reason you as a group should be encouraging Douglas County to take greater interest on Tahoe through a memorandum of understanding so the

planning commission and the board of county commissioners can weigh on in on behalf of its residents. The strategic plan executive summary. Globe Troder Properties is pleased to present a unique soft cell opportunity for the development of a premier 9.1 acre luxury outdoor hospitality project in Ze Cove. This is a fully entitled development including cabins, tree houses are not tree houses. I hope some of you will review that in the uh future. And glass domes and a 5,000 square foot clubhouse. TRPA approved secured a significant barrier entry to the Tahoe basin. This project is primed for a partner to step in and help bring the sustainable vision to life. The partnership opportunity. While the project is available for acquisition, the ideal scenario is a collaboration with experienced vertical hotel developer. The sponsor, Rachel Bowers, has already invested heavily in the project um with ongoing design and operations. We are seeking a partner who will take an active role in capital stack finalization and construction management. We are uh we are flexible financial overview total project capex 32,500 inclusive of land and soft and hard costs. development costs approximately 525k per key financing strategy. It goes on and on. I will turn this in to staff so you can um understand that I am very concerned when projects get entitled and then are flipped like this and the residents of Douglas County have no recourse before the planning

commission or the board of county commissioners because we do not have theou that is required with the Tahoe regional planning agency. Thank you. Thank you, Ellie. Anyone else? Seeing no one rise, I have a closed public comment. Uh, question for staff. We have no authority over this, do we? Tom Delair, for the record. Um, we have a design review application in. I don't know where that's at in the process um after the TRPA gets the approval, but right now they are doing the planning up in Tahoe. TRPA is responsible for that. We are working on on on getting that changed, but it takes some time to to implement.

Kate Kate Moris O'Neal for the record planning department. So that um we have received an appeal of the design review. So the the um appellant is aware that it's not disapproval of the project because it's already been approved, but they are appealing the approval of the design review. So that will be coming to the planning commission in July um at the July meeting. Thank you. So now it is time for approval of the agenda. Are there any comments or corrections?

Move to approve the agenda. Moved by Lori and seconded by Dan. All those in favor? I I approved unanimously. Approval of the amendments. Are there any corrections? Seeing none, do we have a motion?

Move to approve the agenda. Second. Moved approval by Lori, seconded by Jim. All those in favor? I. Again, unanimous. And please note that chairman Bruno is absent for both. Item number one for possible action discussion on major variance application DP26-00004 for 1558 First Street Minden seeking approval to reduce the northwesterly side setback at the property from 10 ft to 5 ft to construct a proposed detached garage. The subject property is located in the Minton community plan area and is zone multifamily residential MFR. The applicant is Pat Clark Building Concepts and the owner is Norton Family Trust 2024 Mark and Raquel Norton Trustees APN 1320-32-11-078 Linda Dohy presenting. Thank you and good morning everyone. Um yes, this uh is a major variance for the side setback to accommodate a an attached garage. Um there are structures that are going to be removed, one of which is already encroaching on to the neighbors property. So this will improve the nonconformity where that's re in regard to that. And um uh Pat Clark is the applicant for the owners and he's here today can answer any questions. Um this is uh originally they had included uh a driveway on tomorrow but that is no longer part of this request. So it's strictly request for variance to the side setback from 10 ft to 5 ft which is similar to what's existing in the neighborhood. Um it's

mainly single family but it's got uh multif family zoning which is why there's a 10-ft setback. So respect. Are there questions of staff? Dan, did this item go back to uh city of Minden or Town of Minden? Uh Linda Dhy for the record. Uh yes, it did. Uh the town of Minden unanimously uh approved the variance and that was just on May 6th. This is Mr. Pat Clark of Building Concepts, the applicant.

Pat Clark, Building Concepts. Um, just a couple of things. There was a uh detraction letter um submitted to the file and wanted to address one point made in that that wasn't correct. Um, in our application, we made a comparison to this setback. Um there's a multifamily overlay on the east side of Mono, but none of the use on the east side of Mono has moved to multif family. It's still either single family and there's a couple offices, you know, Perkins and and uh Winters. Um so my comparison was is if this were a equivalent single family residential parcel, we wouldn't be here and we'd already enjoy a 5-ft setback. The negative letter tried to compare this to um because the property is facing first um the detractor said that this really is like reducing your rear yard setback which would be much more egregious but the the definition that would be the front by the way on first street it's 100 ft and the mono length is 105 so per planning that would be the front but this is what's known as a reverse corner lot in county vernacular and that would automatically make the rear yard setback comparable to a sideyard setback in the county planning code today. So, so my analogy I I feel still holds true is that this should be treated similar to the same use even though there's the multif family overlay and then if that were the case we wouldn't even be here today. It's just because of the multif family overly exists that we are struggling with the setbacks in that location. The other point that was addressed in the negative application was that there's another place to place the garage. Um a little it's on the

south portion right there. Right there. The what's not clearly visible here is just past the um little apartment that's being torn out also. Can you show them that? That is also going to be removed. And then the building, as Linda had noted, right there, that will be removed as well. Um, just past that apartment that's going to be removed, there is a power line right on the alley, a power pole, and a guideline that goes about 20 ft down the alley line. So, we had explored placing a garage there earlier. And even with the removal of the power line and the guideline, which is possible but difficult, there's still not enough room or depth between the alley and the house to turn in and successfully get into the garages. U we actually tried it with my vehicle a couple of times. The there's just too much encroachment on the historic parcel to to the west there. Um so we did explore other options. This is the last option that we feel is viable in placing a garage on this property and hence the extra work to try to get the variance approved to make it a feasible garage. So, um I think those are my my two points. I think we discussed several of these before. Um, as someone at the town of Mindon uh brought up, I think it was Larry, uh, the proposed architecture in the packet is not completed because it wasn't a part of the findings. So, we didn't draw a very pretty garage yet. It was just a placeholder. Um, we intend to do a much better job of of of, you know, expressing oldtown historic architecture in that garage structure once we're done. But for now, it was it's not part of the finding. So, we didn't spend the client's money on it just in case this is unsuccessful and then it would just be additional wasted dollars. So, but it

will be nicer when we're done. And if there's any questions, please. Jim, you have my sympathy. I grew up on a house built in 1907. The uh the garage was model A. Yeah. Yes. Um, so basically where where exactly is the original driveway off of the uh alley? Is it going to be where you're putting it or was it closer to first? It's more curiosity than any

There is no drive. Oh, I I guess it's the the access to the the carriage house is the the property lines are slightly skewed from this. Okay. the the carriage house, which is the long rectangular one that shares the property line with the neighbor to the to the northeast. That is the carriage house. Um, and it the it is partially on their property, but more like a foot and a half. Not this shows like maybe 8 feet um or six feet or something. It's much smaller than that, but it is on their property. And that will remove that. Removing that structure of course will solve that nonformity as well. Mhm.

Um but there's so um that's it. That was the driveway and it may have been partially off the property. So So with the removal of the apartment and the carriage house, we have just enough room to to place the garage on on the other side there. So um I'm sorry that answer your question. Yeah, this is kind of what I was hoping you were going to do last time. But I like this much better. Unfortunately, we didn't we, you know, when we got shot down with the driveway approach, we missed our opportunity the first time at the town of Mindon to continue the discussion about just the setback. We didn't have a good plan B,

so it took us extra month to get plan B together. So, I like it. Thank you,

Dan. Did you consider um a narrowed garage to avoid needing the setback varants?

Um yes, I suppose you could go and make an argument that only a onecar garage would fit. Um I think that's a reasonable counterargument, but um again, you know, we're trying to meet, you know, address this as a county standard. You know, it's should be two covered parking. So that was our initial goal to get that and and then I think the biggest problem that I was pushing for is that the reason we're here is because we're we're dealing with uh the influence of the multif family overlay, right? And and I don't blame the detractor from trying to use that to their advantage to maintain the view that which is I believe their goal. But you know um we even have an example of Desireette. you know, we're building much bigger houses on every day with the same setbacks further down and um you know, and there's no I mean, those tend to work as well. So, you know, I I just um yes, it could be limited to a smaller garage, but you know, would lack a lot of function that way. The uh other thing is to try and get as much of that driveway away from the back of the house as well. It's just a tight space as you can see. And there and there's really no other place to put it on the alley over here. It doesn't fit by the time you turn. You know, there's only it's not even a valid depth between the front of the um garage and the and the existing structure. Not to mention, we'd have to address the power pole and guideline. you know, most of these many of the other structures we worked on the house two doors down too and it has five foot setbacks as well. Um, even new ones that garage is placed at 5T to the side. It's just part of it, you know. And then the one on the corner which we all love, it also has, you know, some limited um side

setbacks. It's just a, you know, historically these tighter setbacks um were there. It's just that the multif family is creating the additional challenge. So Kirk, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh just a couple of big picture questions. So right now on the property, we have three buildings that will be torn down, uh the carriage house, the shed, and the outuilding. Is that correct? Uh yeah, that that I think that one in the front that that's already gone. That's already gone.

Yeah, that's already gone. It was some sort of shed. Yes, it would be the carriage house and what I'm calling an apartment, but it was never valid as a residence, I guess, as we found out. So, um I don't know the providence of that. It's pretty old. I've talked to people that used to live there as an apartment, but So, you're removing the uh the building that uh was encroaching on the neighbor's property. That's correct. And you're removing the carriage house and you're replacing Well, that that is the carriage house. That is the carriage house. And then this little apartment, but it's, you know, it's more of a guest house, I guess, would be more appropriate term. So, we've got a guest house and a carriage house. Yes, both.

Okay. And is this, excuse my ignorance, but is the size of the guest house uh somewhat smaller than the size of the proposed garage? Um, yes, the it is the existing guest house is slightly smaller than the proposed garage. That's okay. And then it in the title of the agenda item, it says the garage will be attached. Uh so the garage is going to be attached to the main house. Yeah, that's correct. Uh um it's in the packet, too, I believe. But but along the um there's a I don't know. I can't quite point at it, but but yeah, it will attach to the norththeastern point.

Yeah. Stand a little closer to the mic. It it it'll the garage will attach to the northeastern face of the existing res. Okay. I just wanted to put those big picture questions uh on the record. Thank you very much. Moren, Casey, for the record. It is difficult driving by the property to gauge what's happening on this lot. And looking at the schematics, it's it's a little difficult. This garage is very deep, 38 ft. And the cars are what allowing enough space what 20 24 26 ft.

Okay. For cars. So what's the extra 14 ft going to be used for storage? Um I we we haven't developed the space and the length. Please please stand closer to the mic.

So we haven't developed the the the finished product as far as the length because we we are stuck with the width. If we cannot get a the variance for the side setback um then I don't know what we might not even continue with this approach for a garage at all. So we didn't really develop that full depth. Um you know I I understand that you're you're considered it's extra long. Um you know I'm not sure how we would limit that length here. Um, you know, but that that could be explored, I suppose, if that's a conditional approval. But, um, you know, at this point, we were we had just drawn a garage shaped block in there to see if we could get the setback, especially given that we kind of ran into the meat grinder on the driveway issue. So, we didn't really want to spend any uh significant extra dollars at this point until we found out if this was a viable approach. But I understand it's it's it is shown extra long right now.

Yes. Well, for me it's it's important to know exactly what I'm dealing with where the placement because this is a historic neighborhood. It'd be nice to know where things are going to be sitting on the lot. Don't want to lose the character. Okay. Of the neighborhood. That's important to me.

Yeah. My only response to that, and it's kind of a chicken way out, is it wasn't one of the findings, so we didn't spend the client's dollars on it. I mean, if if that's a finding like the the shape, I I totally understand. Maybe it should be a portion of the application is what architecture is going to go there. To me, I think is a valid question. It just we didn't do it because it wasn't one of the findings that we were supposed to make. So,

Landon, would this be going to design review? Linda Dhy for the record. Um, no, because it's residential and it's an allowed use, so we wouldn't require design review. Yeah, Lori. So, Linda, can you um can you verify that right now if this house was being built today um that it would require two covered parking spaces? Linda Dhy for the record. Yes, that is a standard requirement today that residential has two covered parking spaces.

Um so covered could could be a carport as well, right? Could be. Um so right now as it stands this house is non-conforming for many things. One of them is covered parking. The other is the existing setbacks of the existing buildings on the site. Um so removal of the carriage house and the existing ADU would actually reduce some of the nonconformity and the um construction of a twocar garage would also reduce an existing non-conformity. So it would assist in bringing it closer to code while still allowing having the requirement for a variance for that side rear yard setback. Yes, that's absolutely correct.

Kate Kate Moris O'Neal for the record just in regards to plan review. So although it doesn't come for a design review, it will go a building permit and we do have planning that reviews that building permit. So, if the planning commission makes comment on the depth of the garage, if those types of comments, uh, those would be taken into consideration. You could you you could definitely, you know, Linda can make make note of that. Um, when reviewing the plan, um, the permit within plan review, it will all be based on code and dimension and what is allowed. So, doesn't mean that they couldn't go that long if it's within, you know, building code and and such, but at least the architecture and, you know, it does need to look like conforming to the other homes. It can't all of a sudden look like a garage that sits on Pacific Ocean if that helps.

Dan, thank you, Chairman. Since it's an attached a proposed attached structure, does it require the existing structure to be brought up to current code? Um, no, it's just the new structure itself. I mean, I don't know if you want to talk to fire separation or

the the the fire there they will require that the fire separation between the garage and the house be upgraded. Sure. Um the house is being remodeled completely. So um it's going to be completely new as far as anything that can be modified to brought into uh current code conformity. There could be something somewhere that is non-life safety that may remain but in general the the uh the applicants want to um live there themselves. So they they definitely are spending a lot of money or plan to on on bringing this into you know the modern age without totally losing the historical roots of the property. So

Tom, thank you. Uh Tom Delay for the record. Yeah, the requirement is the 50 I think it's 50% of the value of the existing home um based on the value. So, if the garage if the house costs a million dollar and the garage is $500,000 or more, then the house has to become conforming. Um, but it if it's less than that, then it wouldn't have to have to do that. Lori,

so one of the concerns in this neighborhood is um compatibility with existing architecture. So, is that part of the existing development requirements or is that something we should contemplate adding as a condition that the architectural features of the house remodel in the garage be compatible with the neighborhood? Linda Dhy for the record. Yeah, I believe that's one of the findings. Um, and as Mr. Clark mentioned, they are going to spruce up the architecture compared to what you see in your packet. Um but um these people do want to live there and they do want to make everything compatible with the neighborhood because it is historic downtown Minden. So um and and again that will go through building permit review and that's something that planning is going to look at during that review. So, um, we still have say,

Jim, um, again, as someone who grew up in a very historic neighborhood, um, next door to the house that was built in 1880 and owned most of the land in my community, um, I want to see these houses saved. I don't want to see someone give up and want to tear it down. So, I am again I would be concerned with with the review and the com uh comparable with other houses in the neighborhood. That's essential to keeping these neighborhoods alive and uh help them evolve into the future, not simply become something people give up on. So, um I I'm curious about the depth of the garage. I don't think it's a deal breaker for me. Um but the um you know the being compatible with the rest of the neighborhood compatible and look as much like a house that was built in 1907 but is nice and fixed up I think is great. So overall I like this again so much better than the previous idea. And so uh I would be pretty much in favor of this. Another question I have is the location of the door. By adding the door there, the garage width is an extra 2 and 1/2 ft. Has there which requires the major variance? Has there been any consideration of putting the access door anywhere else which would allow you to have the variance at 2 and 1/2 ft as opposed to requesting a uh 5 foot

change in the variance.

Well, I could say yes, we proposed it off mono. That didn't go very well. So, um the one of the reasons why we need the one of the reasons we need the um location where it's at is the house is um 4T high. So, the existing home that they're saving is is got an elevated floor. So, when you leave the back of the house, it's not really well shown here, but there's a landing and the steps down. So, we couldn't take that out to provide driveway or approach for the garage. We're trying to keep that and that pushes the driveway north and which is part of the reason why we're looking for the additional width. So, um so but then there's really no I mean the final option theoretically would be an access off first, but I I just that's pretty bad. I mean, you know. Yeah. I mean, it's just there's trees, there's it's just I I don't think they would do that. I I think they would give up, quite honestly. Um, and then I don't know what would happen to this. So, because, you know, I just don't know how you successfully put it in from first on either side of the house. So, so but anyway, so, so it's not really the door. It's more of the garage, you know, location is the principal problem. So, there's no other place to put the door on that, you know, in the current location. And there's no, we haven't found a viable location other than that. seems like there's room, but there's, you know, I tried to drive in there and you need to go quite a ways. In fact, there's even a representative curve there during our discussion still. And then, you know, even to make that, you would be approaching your garage in a

turn. You know, it would be very difficult to park in it. And then from the end of that completed turn to the face of the building was only like 19 ft. It's not even enough for a valid I'm not talking about the large garage door. I'm talking about the little 2 and 1/2t access door. Oh, okay. Well, so bear in mind that again. So, we walk out of the rear of the existing home and we're up here. So, there's a landing. So, so we had to push everything to the left because of that landing because we're up in the air. We need to come down to grade. So, because of that, we we

Yes. I'm so sorry. The uh because of that allocation of space needed to get down from the existing residence to grade which is 3 and 1 half to 4 ft that space exists. So then we maintain that garage door and door into the garage because we've already burned that space by having to pull the driveway line over. Otherwise we we can't get out of the residence because it's it's up in the air. We need not only do we need a landing, but we need like five risers or six risers stairs. So, we proposed that mandor merely because we'd already needed that buffer space.

Thank you. Any more questions? No. Thank you, sir. Sure. I'll open this for public comment. Seeing no one rise, I will close public comment, restrict to the commission. Anybody have anything? Lori,

thank you. So, I'm reviewing the findings for this variance. Um, the first finding is the one I'm struggling with a little bit, but you know, in looking at the plot plan of the parcel, there just doesn't seem to be a lot of good alternatives um for a garage. I know that as an existing non-conformity, it can continue that way, but um you know that that carriage house to me is um looks like it's a fire hazard to be honest with everybody. Um so I think removing that is uh positive for the neighborhood. I think providing the uh applicant with uh covered parking is a positive. uh and I don't I really don't see a good alternative uh on the site that does not require some kind of variance. So I think the staff's um discussion of uh the why that finding can be met I I agree with that and so with that I think the other findings are um easier to um to find in support of and so I am supporting this variance today.

Dan Is it appropriate to just say ditto? No, I would agree with that. It's a net improvement and u I would hope to hold the applicant to his commitment to uh spend a little bit of money on making the historic uh nature of the building tie in. I was going to ask though, does the town of Mendon review it architecturally or anything? Do do they have a say in the the architectural look from the outside? Uh, Linda Dhy, for the record, they could have, but they did not make any comments about it. Yeah.

Okay. We we'll hold him to that his commitment. Jim, again, I believe the findings are met. I have walked around that property and and looked at it and I think this is an improvement. I'm sure that the neighbors will appreciate and I hope again the garage is designed in a way that's compatible and looks like it was built in 1907 but it's brand new. And with that I think um I'm for it. Thank you Kirk.

Thank you Madam Chair. I do want to acknowledge the comments that were submitted in supplemental materials by Jolene Satler, I believe it is. Uh they obviously put in a lot of work to uh explain their position and I do uh recognize that uh uh that uh submission. So I appreciate that. But uh I agree with my commissioner uh colleagues. Uh I'd also note that the town of Minden went from 180 degrees opposed to 180 degrees four uh with the changes that are made. So I think it's an improvement. Nothing is perfect in this world. Um and uh we hope that uh the neighbors can be accommodated uh uh with a nice uh nice rebuild of the garage and the home improvements that are made uh to better the neighborhood. So thank you very much. I appreciate the responses from the town of Minden. I believe they were very thoughtful and I do agree with their comments on finding three that the parcel does not exhibit unique physical characteristics and that constructing a smaller garage or a single car garage would meet required setbacks. And that location, with location considered, it's a design preference rather than a physical hardship. However, when I looked at the satellites and I drove by the lot and I looked things over and over and over, it will be a drastic improvement to that lot. And I hope that things will work out with the neighbor. She did spend a lot of time on her comments. I am concerned about the depth of the garage and I do not want the garage to be larger than the house.

And I hope during design review that both parties will work very hard to make something that is acceptable to the historic character of the neighborhood and that we will end up with something that is beautiful. I believe they've invested enough money in the property and enough time that their heart is in the right place and they will become very welcome neighbors in mind for a long time to come. So I will be supporting this as well. Do we have a reading of a motion?

I will move to where is it here? Got to find it. Thank you. Move to approve major variance DP26-004 as presented in the staff report and subject to conditions that are set forth therein. Is there a second? Second. Jim. We have motion by Lori, second by Jim. All those in favor? I.

Motion passes unanimously. Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you all very much. Item number two for possible action, discussion on land division application 2026-DP-TSM-00001, a request for a tenative subdivision map to create 10 airspace condominiums for a third phase of the Taho Tahoe Beach Club, a residential condominium and beach club development project. The subject property is located along Beach Club Drive in the R-077 Residential-Oliver Park Zoning District in the Tahoe Community Plan and Oliver Park area plan. APN 1318-22-310-018. The applicant is Patrick Remy, CEO, Beach Club Development Phase 3 LLC. And the applicant's representative is Dena or Dina Scher Bush Lumos and Associates Incorporated. Kate Morus O'Neal is presenting for Lucille Rayo, who is recovering at home and also is retiring from community development at the end of the month. We will not see Lucille again before us and we will miss her greatly. Kate, thank you. Chairwoman Casey Kate Morales O'Neal for the record. We do have Lucille till the end of June, not the end of this month. So, we're But you are definitely correct. We will we will miss her greatly. So, um before I welcome to the podium Andrew Strain. He's actually got the applicant representative that's here today. I just wanted to share some

information. Um the history is of this project is in the staff report, but I just wanted to share some highlights. So TRPA approved the project in June of 2011. Um the tenative subdivision map was approved in November of 2015 by the board of county commissioners. Um it created 12 multi-unit uh residential parcels, one common area parcel and one water treatment facility parcel. Uh the approval of the tenative subdivision map for the 48 airspace condominium units was approved on May of 2016 by the planning commission and then again on May 19th by the board of county commissioners. So there are three remaining parcels which will have a total of five buildings uh with a total of 28 residential units. Three of the buildings um that's building number 10, 12 and 13 will each have six units in them. And then the two uh other buildings 11 and 14 uh will have a total of 10 units. So five each. So I just wanted to give you a little bit of background. I'm going to invite Andrew up now. um to do the presentation unless you have any questions.

Questions for Kate? No. Okay. Thank you, Kate. All right.

Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the commission. I'm Andrew Strain. I'm with the Beach Club uh development team, and thank you for taking time to speak with me this afternoon about our application. It's pretty straightforward uh given that we're on the third and final phase of this project and I don't think I'm overstating it when everyone probably from Lucille on is going to be anxious for us to finish this project which began uh 15 years ago and probably longer with the environmental studies that happened first and the design work. The request before you is to create a subdivision map for the airspace of 10 condominium units. These are residential units for building 8 only. You can go ahead. Building 8, I'll show you a picture in a minute, is under construction right now. The framing is essentially done. We expect it to be dried in in about uh four or five weeks and finished by the end of the year. It's a 10-unit multi-residential building. It's a town home style design, so it's vertically uh all in the same twotory units on the ends and three-story units in the middle uh for a total of 10 units. We will complete the construction this year and begin to turn the units over to the new buyers. and we're asking for your recommendation on to the board of county commissioners uh to approve the tenative subdivision map for the airspace condominium units. It's identical essentially in action to what Kate described we did for phase one which was a total of 46 units that are now occupied and phase two which are a total of 48 units and they're now fully occupied. Those are the part of the

property to the west towards Lake Tahoe. If you could go to the next, this is a photo during construction. And building 8 is kind of in the middle of the site. We're working our way from west to east, from the lake where the beach club and the, you know, the attractions and the amenities are up the hill to the east to the edge of our parcel. And building 8 is the one that's under construction right now. Could you That's what building 8 looked like a couple of weeks ago when we worked with the staff to uh put the packet together for you and the presentation. Um and it will be it's a new design. It's a town home style design. Uh, so there may have been some confusion early in the process, but we're asking for your recommendation and approval for 10 units that are essentially vertical in nature from ground floor to second floor on the end units and then from ground floor to the top of the roof line there. You can see in the middle of the building for the three level units. You can go ahead to the next one. That's the parcel itself. It's a little over 14,000 square ft. And um the other buildings and parcels that are yet to be built for phase three that Kate described for you will look very similar in nature. 10-unit buildings and six-unit buildings to finish the project. You can go to the next one. This is the ground level of the building itself. You can go to the next one. The second floor. And then uh one more. Thank you. the third floor where you can see the units on either end. Uh they're only two floor units, so they would stop at that point. These are elevation drawings. They are consistent with the county's design review policies and standards. The

design review for the entire third phase was approved in 2025 during the middle of the year. It's fair to say that these have a Tahoe feel to them with steeply pitched roofs, natural building materials, stone wood, lots of windows, uh on-site parking, and um they are consistent also with the TRPA's design review guidelines and design standards for things such as building height. I think that's it. And that's it. It's uh as I mentioned uh we believe that the we can make the findings and would ask you to please make them uh and we agree with the staff's recommendation regarding the findings and with their recommended action to you to recommend approval of the tenative subdivision map onto the board of county commissioners. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Madam Chair, thank you.

Questions Kirk?

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I'm not sure if this is in your Bailey wick or uh whether uh we'll need to get further amplification on this down the road. It's not that big of an issue to me. Uh Kate, you may have something uh that you can contribute to. But I'm looking at our uh uh packet, and this is packet page uh 74 and 75, the uh traffic uh information. Uh, so I I will accept uh if you can't comment on this or be more specific, but what it shows to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that uh traffic on US50 has declined since the beach club was proposed and uh had you had to go through the EIS. And I assume having been in Tahoe for uh coming up on 9 years now, it's because the Lakeside Casino that was originally on the property on the corner of 50 and Kale Drive is no longer there. Um now there may be other factors uh that uh come into play. Um and we obviously don't know what will happen with the proposed Barton project when that comes forward. Um, but when I'm looking at the uh the the table A on packet page 75, I think I see what amounts to a a fairly dramatic decrease in traffic in that area, which could potentially be uh very difficult if if traffic were to increase considerably. But it seems to me that uh because the conditions have changed, traffic is down, and we don't foresee any traffic issues in the foreseeable future, notwithstanding anything else that might happen. Did I summarize that or can you amplify on anything that may have missed or anything?

That's my understanding too, Commissioner Walder. Uh it's my understanding too that the TRPA serves as the regional transportation planning agency and collects data from both uh the Nevada department or division of transportation as well as uh California Department of Transportation and they assemble the data on an annual basis using traffic counts and then distribute it to the different agencies that are involved in the transportation planning world. And it is been my understanding over the last number of years that the traffic volumes as they are measured uh have been decreasing and you my likely my guess is that you will likely get an update for that if and when the the Barton project comes before you. I think it'll be discussed probably in great length in the environmental document uh that the TRPA is requiring.

Yeah. Thank you very much. And and again uh the Barton project is not even been proposed yet. So we have to leave that off the table in making our decisions. But in a nutshell, the future buildout uh in addition to this uh proposal now is not going to significantly increase the traffic volumes more than were anticipated when you originally came for this project. Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Madam Chair. What's the uh timeline on the buildout? I know you probably don't have the clearest crystal ball, but what what's anticipated?

It is uh Commissioner St. John uh tied directly to sales as you can imagine and our current schedule is to begin the buildings 10 and 11 this summer and get them started. We're working right now with the building department on the permitting. As I mentioned, the planning staff uh issued a design review approval last summer for the the full buildout. So, we intend to start 10 and 11 this summer. I believe it's 12 and 14 next summer and then building 13 at the final year 2028. And we have a I I would like to characterize it as a very nice looking well-designed uh subtle entrance improvements that would pretty much go in at the end of the project after the construction uh traffic uh is gone. So, it feels to me from where we sit today uh that we would be probably 3 years out to finish and we're all anxious to be done.

Another one. Just a followup. Okay. So, each of these uh future buildings, parcel 10, 11, 12, 13 uh would come back to us for the same action. Yes. Thank you. Yes, Jim. I just really want to thank Commissioner Walder because I looked at the traffic report and it didn't make sense. I had forgotten that the casino had closed. I kept looking at going because I' I've looked at traffic reports with developments and thought, "Nope, somebody got paid off." But in this case, it makes sense. So, that was my concern and it's been answered. So, thank you,

Lori. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I don't know, Kate, if you can find the um site map on page 64. I don't have the Oh, you don't have that? Okay. Um digitally. Digitally, it would be two slides back. One more. One more. There you go. But so I only see 12 12 buildings on that. Um but 10 looks like maybe it's three buildings in one envelope or something. See it says adjusted parcel 10. It's huge.

Maybe we could go back. Is there another one? I'm not I'm just conceded. Parcel 8 is what we're doing. That that's what's in front of us today. Um 10 and 11. And I again it's cut off because I'm just focus those are the future maps. So the there um there's three buildings 10 12 and 13 the right because those are future maps future future building future maps and then the other two buildings will be 11 and 14. Okay. So you just see this map doesn't show 13 or 14. No, it just shows a giant

Yeah. She just was focusing. They're focusing on this one. So, they just happen to They're the the two buildings, the 11 and 14 are actually the larger parcels, but you just can't see those. You can see 11, but you can't see 14. Um, it's not even on the map of of anything, right? Yeah, it's it wouldn't it's not there yet. Um, I mean, it because today in front of us is just this, right? I just I was just curious when he's talking about buildings that aren't showing up on the on the site plan. Um

Oh, you want me to go back? Okay, let's go back. That Yeah, that's a good idea. So, that's here's here's the final phase here. Okay. Um All right, that sounds fine. I just I wasn't clear whether or not we were talking about extending it farther to the east or that was the extent. So on our site plan, building 10 is actually 10, 11, and 13. So, and they're reumbered. So that answers my question. Thank you. Right. So this I see what you're saying. So in this one, oh no, they're they're labeled correctly. So here's the 11 and 14 and then 10, 12, and on the site plan, it's not.

Okay. So Okay. Thank you. I just have one simple question. Do you want to say something? Okay, let Tom talk before me.

Thank you. Um, Commissioner Ly, this is this is this project was originally approved for this many parcels. And so the last three buildings got consolidated onto onto one larger parcel, which was parcel 10. That's why it's like that on this map. But when they come and develop that, there will be a small land area that will be owned by the HOA at that time, which will still be owned by the adjacent property, which is an HOA also, but it'll be in between the structures when they come forward. So, they will have three structures within that one footprint.

Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. So, There we go. Okay. I just wanted to confirm that um we were not moving the eastern edge of the property boundary or the project boundary um farther to the east to accommodate more construction. So this is all contained within the footprint of what was shown on the site plan is building 10. So that's my my question and thank you for confirming everything. Andrew. Yes, Madam Chair. I think you would faint if we were extending it farther.

You seem like you want to be done. My My only question is I just want to confirm the maximum height of the buildings is 35 ft. It's about 36 feet total, which is consistent with the county's ordinance as well as the TRPA's height ordinance. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Kate,

Commissioner. Um, Lyle, thank I understood your question after the whole I I I obviously was not following what you were asking. So, um, thank thank you for the assist, Tom, for explaining that. Um, any other questions for myself or Mr. String? Not at this time. We will open for public comment. Kelly Andrew, I'm going to write your name in.

Good afternoon, uh, Ellie Waller. This appears to be what is referred to as building 8, which contains 10 units and is under construction. So, I'm cons confused as to why it's on the agenda today and wasn't approved earlier. Perhaps it's just to separate it from the rest of phase three. Next, the noticing radius seems silly, although it's following the rules. Not all Beach Club residents had to be notified. Maybe that's a possible title TR 20 update. Uh, thank you, uh, Commissioner Walder for bringing up the traffic study. Um, I still think that actual counts for 22, 23, 24, 25 could have been presented just to show um, the decline as it's been stated. I know the Barton environmental impact statement will have to provide more up-to-date info along with uh NDOT. Um I also um notified uh the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that I had some concerns. Um here are a few excerpts from an answer and I will um attach the entire um TRPA response from Mr. Neielen. This is from table 1-1. Development and implement in a dewatering plan. A dewatering plan shall be de developed and implemented to prevent or minimize sediment and containment releases into groundwater during excavations and methods for cleanup. This is dated March 12th, 2026. by the way, because there has been past groundwater intercept issues, measures to prevent or minimize sediment and containment releases into groundwater during the excavation. Um, under conditions of TRPA approval, there is a TRPA file 20003501

appendix B to make sure that notification goes to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Again, this is another project that Douglas County um doesn't really get to. Um the residents don't, you as commissioners and the board of county commissioners do not weigh in because we don't have the proper memorandum of understanding. Thank you. Thank you, Ellie. Seeing no one else rise, I will close public comment. Kate, do you wish to address anything? I'm sorry, chairman.

We're all missing our microphones today. Or else I'm hitting it and your button is is knocking me off. Uh, this is on the agenda. My understanding, every building that comes forward comes on our agenda. Is that correct?

Yes. the tenative subdivision map does come on um does come to the planning commission. Um I believe Miss Waller does make a valid point. Um typically and I have not been on this project. It was approved long before we were here. The design review was obviously approved. So once your design review is approved, you can move forward with your other application with your other applications. Um, ideally from a manager standpoint, I would like to see them at least done concurrently, meaning the building would not be approved until the tenative subdivision map was approved. Um, but again, I I was not here. I don't know if Tom, you you can probably comment to that, but ideally, you do want to see the subdivision map concurrently done. Um but I believe it was part of the approval and since the design review was approved it it can all that it has conditions of approval and it you can start moving forward with your other applications.

Tom Deair for the record. So um on this particular unit the design review is a footprint and this is a shell. That's how we issue the permit is a shell permit and they can basically build the outside of the structure and then they have to come back once the structure is built per code and when the foundations established and it's in installed then the surveyor comes back and does the the layering on top of it. So each unit ends up with an APN and that's what's happening now is you're splitting that one structure into 10 sellable units and that's what this map is doing. And um and then once those addresses and APN numbers are established, then we can go and get building permits for each of those 10 units. And it'll be like a tenant improvement in a commercial zone uh or in a commercial building. And they'll have we'll issue 10 more permits for these units, one for each one, so that each homeowner actually has a permit for their unit. Um this has some common area within it as well inside the structure. um or used to. I don't know if this particular model does have that. I think these are individual units now, but the other ones had uh like HOA areas inside of it as well, like the hallways and outside the elevator and things. So, uh this is a little bit different product uh that they're doing now and and it was mainly to fit on uh in their footprints that they had and and reduce the the construction costs as as they move east. And for the purposes of the growth management ordinance, each one gets its own little

Yeah, these these are Tahoe units. Um, so they're Tahoe allocations. If I may, Chair Chairwoman Casey, yes.

And for clarification, I think my point being um if this wasn't approved, you have a big building there that does what now? So that's kind of my point. I think just logically concurrently does make sense per code. Right now you can basically build the shell. Um but again it's something maybe to discuss in our with our update. Um because to me it just logically makes makes sense so that you want to in case something wasn't approved then then you would have a really nice big huge house down there.

Thank you Kate. We'll take up this discussion when we get further along in title 20. Are there any more questions for staff? If not, do we have a motion? Madam Chair, before uh we go to a motion, I would like to add additional comments. Absolutely.

I I do recognize Ellie's comments about TRPA and the role of Douglas County. Um it's long been an interest of mine. Um, there are higher authorities than the planning commission that uh must be dealt with uh to accomplish what I think Ellie and I probably both would like to see accomplished. But we'll uh let that uh let that uh come to us uh in another day in another fashion. I do want to note though for my fellow commissioners uh we do rely on TRPA. They have a lot more staff. They have a lot more expertise especially when it comes to the technical issues, the environmental issues. I wish Douglas County would have more resources so we could doublech checkck TRPA. Um, but that's not the case. And Douglas County residents do have a voice at TRPA. We have many individuals on the governing board and on the APC that reside in Douglas County. Uh, so if uh anybody is hearing this or reading this that's a Douglas County resident, uh please by all means pound on TRPA if there's something that you don't like. Uh we will try and do our best, but uh that's uh that's the way the world works right now. So uh unless other questions or comments, I'm prepared to make a motion. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the uh planning commission approve land division application 2026 DPTSM-00001 as presented based on the ability to make the required findings subject to the recommended conditions of approval.

I'll second. We have a motion by Kirk, second by Dan. All those in favor? I.

Unanimous. Thank you. You're done. Now we move to number three for presentation only. Report and discussion regarding the board of county commissioners decision to approve resolution 2026R-014 and adopt Douglas County master plan and land use amendment DP25-0226 initiated by James Butch Perry amending the Douglas County master plan related to two parcels along the east side of Pineut Road north of Pineut Court APN's 1220-11-001- 078 and 1220-11-002- 024 within the Gardenerville community plan area by changing the future land use designation of those parcels from agriculture to receiving area. Kate Moris O'Neal plan planning manager for community development presenting and I will open this up for public comment. Thank you, Chairwoman Casey. Again, Kate Merles O'Neal. I am um filling in again. This was Lucille's item. This is presentation only. So, um we're per procedure. Um the memorandum comes back to the planning commission. Um you're willing you know, you're able to discuss the item. Um, as you know, the town of Gardnerville, um, unanimously denied the project. Planning Commission unanimously denied the project. The board of county commissioners um, approved with Commissioner Hails and Commissioner

Gardner voting um, to to deny it. So based on the BOCC approval, it has to come back to you as a presentation item um just to present you the memo. Um you can see the the quote quotes that were taken from the commissioners. Um and that's that's you're you're able to ask any questions or but there's no again it's just a presentationon item. Thank you, Kate. For your information, prior to our meeting, uh I did approach district attorney, not attorney general, HS about the scope of topics that we can discuss under this item. And it came back that we can discuss why the board made this decision, why it was different from the planning commission and the evidence that influenced their decision. All those may be discussed. And as long as we keep the discussion centered on this application and not stray into general policy or code topics, we're good to go. All right? So, do your best. Don't stray. And we also have Eric Nielsson here from the town of Gardnerville who may wish to speak. Who would like to speak first? Should we start down at the end? Jim.

Well, actually, I'd like to hear from uh Eric Nielsen first if that's okay. Absolutely. Eric, would you like to go first?

Thank you, Commissioner McCallip. Eric Nilson, town Garnerville town manager. Um, I'll sign in. I don't have much to say. Um, this area is slated for development. We knew it'd be developed at someday. So, the fact that the town will have 43 acres developed, I think sooner than we anticipated, I don't think um is a huge deal in the scope of the town. um having it be receiving area is a little bit troubling because it could be anything. Um but I think it sets a really bad precedence for the master plan for advisory boards and the planning commission. Um there was a lot of time put into it, research by town staff, by by uh county staff, by planning commission, and to have two unanimous decisions overruled um by the county commission when those who voted in favor of the change didn't contact me. They didn't get any information. Uh two of the three didn't reference any of the findings in their approval. Um so it it kind of just um makes you pause. Why is there a master plan? Why is there a planning process? Why are there public hearings? Um it'd be easier to start at the county commission level and just have them uh tell us what we're going to get. The town attorney will say, uh worry about the things you have direct control over your advisory in this capacity. So whatever decision is made, then you know, you just adjust and live with it. Um which that's what will happen. But um yeah, I just don't uh it doesn't speak well for the overall process. And like I said, for these 43 acres, not a big deal, but for other projects, uh, it could be a big deal. And so, but that's how code set up. So, I don't have anything else to say.

Thank you, Eric. Are there questions? Dan,

it seemed like the uh the reason uh several of the commissioners voted in favor had to do with affordable housing. And I don't know how you keep that commitment sol make that commitment solid. Other words, somebody may say, "Oh, I want to do affordable housing." And then the next best deal comes in and they do whatever they want. And to uh Mr. Neielsson's point about receiving areas could be anything. Um it is a little for a new commissioner up here. It is it is a little daunting when something like this happens because we listen very carefully to what the town had to say and try to understand the whole phasing of it. Why is this outside of the urban area? You know what's the point? You got you got a place right next door that could do the same thing, but apparently for some reason it's not. And it seems like we're getting into the the business of trying to control the development market, not just land use. So it is probably one of the more confusing things I have sat through on the on this commission so far. Um, I'm going to try to not cross the line when and I've been attending commissioner meetings for a long time and I see things described as affordable housing for seniors and not see one unit built. Affordable housing for casino workers and then it comes in at much higher price than that. So, I think that that simply labeling something shouldn't have affected or

shouldn't have influenced commissioners who I think legitimately want to see affordable housing. But commissioners voted on land from the same person as affordable housing for seniors. There's not one unit built. So I think it's important to understand for them to understand the difference between um making something receiving area and actually beginning to control what's built there and when it's built. I think um I think they should have listened to the Gardenerville Town Board what their plan is to move forward with growth. And I was a little surprised they were ignored. I'm a little surprised that this board was ignored. happened to be in the hospital for that meeting, but I'd already read all the materials and I thought that this would, you know, that that that it would have failed based on the findings, but um I'll try to stay in bounds and I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

You may have more to say, Lori.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is it was disheartening to review the comments from the the commission uh members who voted in favor of this action. Um it you know it is um difficult to feel like um the master plan means a lot to them. But I do feel like for the community the master plan is important. It's important to us as planning commissioners. It's important to keep our eye on the on the plan and to continue to move forward with it. And um I can only hope that Mr. Mr. Perry follows through with his his statements. Um, but I I do feel like we as a planning commission have done a really good job paying attention to the community um that we support, that we represent, and that uh I'm proud of that job that we do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with all of the things that my uh colleagues have said, and I also uh appreciate all the hard work and the comments of Eric Nielsen. Um the uh uh Gardennerville Town Board and the uh planning commission tried to deal with the facts and the circumstances. I'll not say what the board of county commissioners decided on, but they did not mention the master plan, the people who voted for this pro project. Uh they did not mention the plan for prosperity. Um, I would have hoped they would have made a decision even though they could disagree with us, but based on some facts and some circumstances. Um, I would like to call attention specifically to comments that were made uh by Commissioner Tarcanian on page 93 of our packet. He said, Mr. Perry said, well, he'll promise this affordable housing is a project that'll be on there. He said that he has a letter of interest. I don't know if it's a letter of intent, letter of interest, which clearly does mean something. It means you have prospective buyer out there that wants to do this at this point. It means that if you say no at this point, 6 months from now, the buyer could be somewhere else and you're going to lose that. I wish we could tie him down to a project. Is it worth the risk of having to trust that he's going to put in what he says without any guidance or guard rails or the possibility that this project will fall through and you don't have affordable housing in that area and that land stays vacant for a period of time? Well, my conclusion is no. It's not the way decisions should be made. Thank you.

Thank you all. I'll probably be talking longer. I sat through the town of Gardenerville meeting. The comments, the report that Eric prepared for the town of Gardnerville was very thorough. It gave a tremendous amount of history to the projects that Mr. Perry had come forward with before along Mueller Parkway. And his Mr. Perry got up and gave history as to the land that he owns along Muller Parkway. He said several times he wanted to sell this property. He didn't say he wanted to develop it. He said he did he wanted to sell it. He did not want to leave this land to his children. When he came to the board of commissioners or when he came to the planning commission, he said the same thing. He wanted to sell this property, but he knew he could not sell it without having receiving area on it. Nobody wanted to buy agricultural land that zoned that way that had no water rights. He couldn't do anything with it. We debated it for a long time. We talked about it. We listened to public comment and we agreed as a whole after hours that we put in at home research that we had done with the master plan with the town's minutes with the plan for prosperity and we decided unanimously that no this was not a project that we could report because it did not meet any

of the findings. It was not in the best interest for Douglas County or for the town of Gardenerville and we respect the towns. It went to the board of commissioners and I could not believe the arguments I was hearing from Mr. Perry who actually really didn't speak much but his attorney got up and gave arguments and I was like what what facts not in evidence because the presentation that came to the board of commissioners was a lot different than what we heard and I don't think that was fair to the planning commission because we ruled on what we got and the plan and the board of commissioners got something that was a lot different than what we heard. And that wasn't fair to them, nor is it fair to the public. They did not hear, "I can't sell this property because it's egg." They heard, "This is not agricultural land anymore. Can't do anything with it. I sold the water rights." Well, they heard it's not viable agricultural land. There are no water rights. They didn't consider the water rights are there. He just didn't want to rent them back, lease them back, buy them back cuz it, oh, I can't do anything with it. My property rights, they are still there. He just can't maximize the value of the property. They didn't hear that. They only thought about maximum property value if he could sell it to this person who said, "I've got a letter of intent," which was in their packet. But a letter of interest

is not a letter of intent. I misspoke. It was a letter of interest. And that could be torn up and throw away in a heartbeat. So there is nothing other than air for Mr. Perry. But now there is because I believe what he had was no more than than this. The findings were not met. Commissioners Hail and Gardener supported the town of Garderville. They supported the planning commission. They supported the master plan. They supported the plan for prosperity. and the other commissioners were going on feelings for the applicant, feelings for I don't know what, but it was so disheartening. The state of Nevada created the mandate that planning commissions should exist in 1975. We are a board that does planning. That's all we do. We study the master plan. We study everything to do with planning. It was said that we're elected, therefore we make these decisions. Well, no. Elected officials do not do planning, they do policy. That's a big difference. I don't understand how that decision to overturn what the town of Gardnerville did and what the planning commission did on a unanimous decision for something that we guard

master plan amendments can be justified at all. There is an out for the board of commissioners. It's on page four of their norms and procedures that they can anyone who votes in favor can ask for a reconsideration whether or not they read their norms and procedures and one of the three decides well I'm having second thoughts based on the public comment that they have received at their meeting and in their packets and what they've heard at our meetings. Maybe they will have a change of heart and ask for reconsideration at their next meeting. I would hope they would because as has been said by us, by the public, by the town of Gardnerville, and not just Eric, but by some of their board members. This does not bode well for the board of commissioners credibility when it comes to their ruling on some of the measures that the the planning commission puts forward. They did this with uh with other things and there used to be a time Kirk you remember where the planning commission where planning commission was overturned constantly. Jim, you remember? And we can't have this. And it it's so disheartening. When I walked out of that meeting, it was like, do I really want to sit on the planning commission if this is what how it's going to be? And I do. I love my job. I love doing the research. I love doing what I do. Not because of any

respect. I'm a planning commission member, but it's because I love my community. I love my county and I want to see it the best that it can be. I hate politics and I sure hate to see the county suffer because of politics. And that's all I have to say. I could go on forever, but I'm starting to repeat myself. Jim, I'll be brief. It kind of reduces what all of us are doing, community development, the planning commission, the town to uh somebody being able to make their land more valuable and thus for selling it. So when they make comments that it's going to be affordable housing, you could say it's going to be a strip mall. You could say it's going to be anything that's all included in receiving area. So to see the the commissioners assume the affordable housing the way in a previous project with the same owner there was assumed that that was going to be affordable housing for seniors which is going to be I think mobile homes in a in a 55 plus neighborhood and you can go drive by that land. There's not one, not one. There's lands more valuable, but not one built. Nobody benefited from it. And then to do it again, you know, fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, you know. Well, the other way how that goes. But but anyway, it's just frustrating. I mean, and I've been going to commissioner meetings for 10 years. I've seen projects labeled all kinds of

things. I think the funniest one was affordable housing for casino workers. Um, and then the prices come out when they put up the signs. They go, "Wow, casino workers must be making a lot more money than they used to."

And another time I think people just brought their neighbors and kids and they got up in line and said, "There's no housing in Douglas County." So, I made a public comment and I said, "Well, I have I have realtor.com on my phone. If anybody can't find housing, and I'm not a realtor, I'm not trying to sell you anything. Come ask me after the meeting. I'll show you all these housing for sale. We have so many projects never built in this county. And it goes on and on. And my guess, and I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is nothing's going to be built there for a long time. And u I hope that the commissioners start seeing the pattern. Some of them that voted for this are new. Maybe they don't realize how many times this has happened. So I hope they will look at a little bit of history before they jump on something and call it affordable housing that is simply making land more valuable for sale. Thank you.

Any other comments? Oh, one other comment. The only way that we could have affordable housing in this county is if it's deeed restricted. And as I understand it, Tom Kate, correct me if I'm wrong, the only way we can have deed restricted housing is if the developer proposes it. Tom, do for the record. Yeah, that's part of the and they Yeah, that's part of the uh the code and they have to be I think it's um 80 or 60 or 80 80% of the median income uh and deed restricted and then it's only deed restricted for 20 years. So Arbor Gardens was that way um which is now older than 20 years old and and so that's market rate now.

Kate, thank you. Kate Moro O'Neal for the record. I think it's important to point out you mentioned the presentation what what you saw in front of you. Um staff was provided the PowerPoint same presentation. So staff was was caught off guard as well. So that was something that you know we were we anticipated them going through a PowerPoint and that that did not happen. So as you mentioned the attorney so um that that was disheartening for us also to to see a different presentation. Yeah, we were all It all came out of left field and it was uh it was unfair public comment. Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity. I wasn't prepared, so I have a short comment. um is this leading up to a reversal or what um Chair Casey called reconsideration? I I don't understand the process and I hope that will be explained at the board of county commissioners if that comes forward so the public better understands um that this can be an option in the future um for all items. um that you have unanimously or pretty close to unanimously have overturned. Um I I guess I'm glad again that I have the opportunity today, but other people didn't know that they could come comment today and you might have got some additional input from the public. I know they'll have an other opportunity. Um, I agree with Eric's comments on the master plan, town plans, planning commission,

etc. Process issues and future precedent setting occurs through this kind of action, and I'd really hate to see that happen uh based on this uniqueness as setting a precedent. Thank you.

Thank you, Ellie. Are there any other comments from planning commission members? No. Okay, then I will Thank you, Kate. Then I will close this item. And once again, uh I will open public comment for closing comments. Ellie, you shouldn't have just stayed there. I know, but we just just in case somebody else wanted to get first. Um, again, along the same lines, this is Ellie Waller. This is not the first time in recent history that your uh decisions have been overturned. I'm still trying to wrap my head around um Mr. Anderson's ability to get up and h and defend a project that was illegally built in the Lake Tahoe basin. And he even admittedly stated his staff person, Mr. Rubin, would not come and do that. So, I don't know how we go forward. I don't know where in a process or a code or title 20 um some of this can be addressed. Um, and I'm hoping in the future when the Barton Hospital comes forward asking for privilege of change in zoning, you are respectful to the neighboring meadow and the animals that can't speak for themselves and the people that live less than 20 feet away in averagesized homes of 15 feet high with a proposal of 85 ft. You think about 75 feet across the street personally. And again, nobody is

against a state-of-the-art hospital. The casino had been in a decline for many years and the environmental documentation will probably represent less traffic, less personnel, and I'm really looking forward to commenting on that um environmental impact statement when it comes out to bring these kinds of things forward before the planning commissioners who will be asked to look at the privilege by right and I really don't like that term by right height um by right not to have to have a special use permit that's in uh the title 20 Tahoe area regulations now and there'll be a lot of other things that come forward about that project that I hope will dissuade you from changing the code thank you.

Thank you, Ellie. Uh, my closing comments would be towards Lucille. We had many years of Lucille. Lucille, I hope you're watching. Many, many years of Lucille. It took a long time to get her name right. Rayo Ralph. And she always greeted us with a smile. She'd get frustrated, but she would roll her eyes and not say anything. And we appreciated her sense of humor and her thoroughess in her staff reports. And she was wonderful to work with. And like I said before, we will miss seeing her around. Kate said she'll be in office until the end of June. So if you get the opportunity, stop in and say hello and goodbye. Other comments. Kirk,

I echo your comments, Madam Chair. Lucille was a delight to work for work with. She was uh always wellprepared. We have a small staff. Uh they work very hard. They work well together. Uh she will be missed. So thank you very much, Lucille. And uh best of luck in the future, Jim. I just want to wish her the best in her retirement health and happiness and chance to do things that she hasn't had chance to do before. So, I just want to wish her the best. Lori,

yes. We just all are going to miss Lucille and want to extend our gratitude and and our thanks for the hard work she did for Douglas County and supporting the planning commission. Dan,

I think we forget some time that uh staff that work so many years for local government, they are public servants. They are they are providing a public value to all of us. And sometimes I don't think we thank our public servants enough. And I know it's hard. You got to have a poker face sometimes. I used to get criticized for rolling my eyes, but uh thank you for your service, Lucille. And with that, this meeting of the planning commission is adjourned.