Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This is a two minute warning. If there's anybody else out in the hallway, it is time to sit in your seats and fasten your seatbelts. I'm going to call the Planning Commission to order. This session is August 11, 2026. Welcome, everyone. May I request that Commissioner Walder lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please stand and face the flag. Join me in the pledge.

The first item on the agenda, as tradition, is opening public comment. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker on matters over which the Planning Commission has jurisdiction, supervision, or control. The Planning Commission wants to encourage respectful consideration of all views by members of the public. If the content is willfully disruptive of the meeting by being irrelevant, repetitious, slanderous, offensive, inflammatory, irrational, that's about all the adjectives I can think of, or amounts to a personal attack or interfering with the rights of others, the individual will be asked to stop speaking. In addition to opening public comment, public comment will also be taken on public hearing agenda items, of which there are two today, for possible action and closing public comment at the conclusion of those two items. If you plan to speak on a specific agenda item that is on the public hearing agenda, and identified for possible action, then please provide your public comment when that agenda item is heard. I will warn you if you speak and say something that's repetitious in opening comment and then attempt to make the same statement when the agenda item is called. Your testimony may be called into question as suspect because why would you need to repeat it other than if you didn't believe it yourself or didn't think you could convince us? At this time, public comment will be taken on items within the jurisdiction and control of the Planning Commission. Additional public comment periods may be allowed on individual items as I've indicated and I will allow today. It's requested that members of the public comment on those agenda items when they are considered, and I've explained why. Are there any public comments at this time? There being none, I can see I return the matter to the next item on the agenda, which is the approval of the agenda. The proposed agenda is before all of us and was published last week. Do I have a motion?

I'll move to approve the agenda.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. You understand that the commission reserves the right to take items in different order. However, with two or more agenda items for consideration, I think that both will remain on the agenda and be taken in order of listing. Let's call for a vote. If there's no discussion, all those in favor. Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously. And the next item is the approval of the minutes for possible action. A discussion to approve the draft minutes of July 14, 2026. I just have one comment, and that is on page 16, I think it is. I'm referred to as I am from time to time, Chairperson Bernal. which is a great name, but it's not mine. So if somebody could do a field check on Bruno and make sure you get rid of the Bruno. So are there any other changes or amendments?

Seeing none, I'll move approval of the minutes.

All right. The minutes have been approved and seconded. The motion's been seconded. I have one question during discussion. Is Brooke B-R-O-K or B-R-O-O-K-E? No E, thank you. So let's exclude the E's as they appear in the July 14 minutes as well. With no further discussion, let's take a vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The minutes are approved as amended and discussed. We're now going to start our public hearings. The first item on the agenda for possible action is a discussion on a major variance application, 2026DPMVAR-0002 for 431 Nevada Street, Zephyr Cove, Nevada, seeking approval to apply the front yard setback and the north property boundary, side yard setbacks to the east and west property boundaries, and the rear yard setback to the south property boundary, thereby establishing a buildable envelope for the construction of a new single-family dwelling. The property, subject property, zoned R, 069 residential in elk point community plan area in the tahoe basin the applicant is ryan boorman of rba pc and the property owner is olin 401k profit sharing plan 2003 APN number is 1318-16-810-060. We're going to be hearing from our planner, Linda Daugherty, today. But before that, any disclosures? One from the chair. I went to the site, visited the site, and the one adjacent lot in the open space on the other side. Any other disclosures? Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, ditto.

It makes sense, the two commissioners that went to see the site are the two commissioners that live on the Tahoe Basin side.

Mr. Chair, I tried to visit the site, but I couldn't get past the gate, so.

I won't tell you how we got past the gate, but I understand. All right, let's open this with our planner. Linda, if you could... start the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Linda Dougherty, Community Development, for the record. Good afternoon, everyone. As you know, today before you is a request for a major variance. And the applicant is stuck in Colorado, but I do have the property owner next to me here, Mr. Bill Olin. If you have any questions, you can ask me or Mr. Olin, and I feel we can proceed with the item. So you'll see on packet page 77 and 78 two maps so on 77 here is the original subdivision map was recorded in 1927 and we are talking about lot 40 today off of Nevada Street and then the most recent recorded map is this map here, document 1034547. And you can see lot 40 is the same size as it was originally recorded in 1927.

All right.

Let's go to packet page 74. This is exhibit A. And what this demonstrates is how the county typically applies setbacks. So we typically apply the front setback to the boundary that abuts the right-of-way. The opposite boundary would be then the rear, and then the other two would be the sides. With this particular parcel, there's only 20 feet of distance here on the actual right-of-way of Nevada Street. The entire boundary is 100 feet, and so the right-of-way is only taking up 20 feet. Now I'm gonna go to page 79. So you can see this aerial here. And this is just a part of the elk subdivision. So you can see how the lots are oriented. Most of them have the narrow boundary on the right of way. And we would apply the front setbacks there. This particular lot 40, you can see where the right of way is just a small portion of the lot. And it's the longer boundary. In supplemental, I included some photographs. And let me pull those up for you. So anyone that wasn't able to get to the site, here's some photos. I was lucky enough that Mr. Olin let me in. So I'm on Nevada Street looking south, just to kind of give you an orientation. And the property boundary of lot 40 runs east to west. It's approximately where this noticing sign is and runs across this way. And Nevada Street actually turns west, which I'll show you in the next picture here. So you can kind of see this approximate boundary line. This is lot 40, the lot in question. And here we have Nevada Street, which turns west. and then there's other pavement here but that's a private driveway that's not right of way and that serves a house on 436 nevada street and then where the county car is parked that's a different parcel 437 nevada street also owned by mr owen this is just to hopefully give you a clearer picture of the pavement Here's the same picture with some labels, and so I don't know if you can see this thick, dark line right here. That's an approximate boundary of Nevada Street, which is on the other side of this pickup truck. And so Nevada Street runs south, and then it immediately turns west. And this last picture is just towards the southern end of the parcel, looking north. And this approximate parcel boundaries, here's that noticing sign right there by the county car. Thank you for letting me park on your parcel. And then here is approximate boundary where Nevada Street turns west, and then this is some of that private driveway. OK, now that you've kind of seen the parcel, we're going to go to page 75 of the packet. And I want to apologize. It's labeled as exhibit A, but it's really exhibit B. Sorry I missed that. But what this represents, let me get a tiny bit. There we go. What this represents is what's being requested today. So if we assign the front set back to the northern parcel boundary here, so then the southern boundary would become the rear, and then we have the two sides. And as you can see, this would create a buildable area to accommodate a single family dwelling. So just to be clear, so there's no reduction in the amount of setback. Front setback is still 20 feet, but it's just basically taking the setbacks and pivoting them, how we assign them. Does that make sense? Okay. So we are just asking to reassign the location of front setback, and then that affects the rest of the setbacks. And then starting page 70 are the findings. So do you guys have any questions so far?

One question, Linda. I did not see the foundations nor the lines. I recognize that there was a building there. which was demolished, and it encroached on the neighbor's property. But I couldn't tell where that was. I know it's irrelevant at this point, but was that to the north or to the, pardon me, the east or the west?

So where that was, let me scroll up a little bit, it was on both of these parcels here.

Oh, indeed.

So it was like the northerly part of Lot 40 and then... up in here on the lot that abuts it to the north, which is just vacant now, as you saw.

Right. No foundations, no nothing.

It's gone.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Linda, the green circles, I'm assuming, are trees?

Yes, that's correct.

To be removed. Are they going to stay? I'm assuming they're going to be removed because they're inside the footprint.

The trees are TRPA. The only additional tree that I think might be removed is the one if you're, I'm looking at the picture on the, so it'd be the west side, yeah, that one would be the only one. Those other two have already been, and the one that's on the boundary would not be removed. Yeah.

I apologize.

That was a question from our vice chair, and the responder was Mr. Olin, welcome. please do say your name before you speak, just so when it's transcribed, we know who's answering what. Thank you.

Okay, and the last question is, it says it's approximately 1,600 square foot building envelope, but when the house that we have in front of us, if this is built, what is the total square footage?

Linda Doherty, for the record. Per Mr. Olin, it would be maybe over 4,000 square feet. It's three levels. They're digging down from natural grade.

You haven't submitted to TRPA, have you?

Okay. So TRPA still has to approve what's submitted. According to this, it's 36 feet tall, but that goes down below the existing grade that's going to be dug out. TRPA does have to approve the height. Yeah.

Commissioner Long? On the plan to, I'm getting my directions messed around. I guess it's to the west. It shows a driveway that is encroaching on the lot. Is that an easement or is that just a mistake when they were putting in the driveway? That looks to be awfully close to your building envelope.

Hi, Bill Olin. So everything that was built back then, no surveys, no nothing done, nothing approved, that driveway is encroaching a little bit on my property. I will remove that encroachment, and I've talked to the people next door, but that's all just private property. It's just their property. They're obviously not following setback laws back from when it was built.

Further questions?

Thank you, Chairman. It appears that the large parcel that surrounds this property on three sides is labeled Community Beach. I assume that's kind of a commons area. And my question, is there any potential for development on those three sides?

So that area is a common area. I would not expect any development there. that also goes down to the private beach.

Thank you.

Further questions of staff? By the way, since we're not in California, I wouldn't expect any easements that are going to be imposed on that either. Didn't mean to disparage California. Commissioner McCullough.

And this building looks extremely tall. I know we've talked about it being dug into, but today we're really just looking at the setback. So I'm not going to comment on the height of the building, but it did just look giant. I was wondering why neighbors aren't here renting and raving, but that's for another time. Thank you. That's all I have. My questions were answered.

Linda Doherty, oh, sorry. Further questions? Oh, go ahead. Linda, I'm sorry, your comment.

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to butt in. I just wanted to let you know we did not receive any comments from any of the neighbors.

Commissioner Walder.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did Mr. Olin want to make a short presentation, or should we just ask questions of everybody at this point, too?

I think Mr. Olin was there for supplemental, and he has not proven to be shy, so that just ask questions of staff, and I'm sure Mr. Olin will participate if he thinks he has something that's very constructive and germane.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a couple of matters I'd just like to run through for clarification purposes. I did tour the area. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's a very nice subdivision. It's very old, though, and the houses vary tremendously. There are some very small ones. There are some very large ones. There are some that are so close to the neighbor, if there were windows on both sides, you could reach out and shake your neighbor's hands. And everything, obviously, was built before setbacks, before TRPA, as Mr. Olin has explained previously. The driveway is kind of a funny, cockeyed driveway. Obviously, you didn't own the land then. Who knows what that owner did and when they did it or was their prior owner, but everything is unique in this particular circumstances. But I did want to ask Mr. Olin to just clarify, because some of our handouts, the ones we got today and the ones that were in the packet, show the property to the north, and it's described as the south one half of lot 38 and 39. And if I'm interpreting the maps correctly, it does kind of show a building on that lot in the materials we have. But am I correct in assuming or verifying what I've researched that you own the adjacent property to the north, which is totally vacant now as well? Is that correct?

Bill Olin? Yes, that's correct.

Okay. And then you have a further neighbor. So you own basically two lots. One is lot 40, and one is half of lot 38 and half of lot 39. Why have they divided lots in half rather than making a new lot that would have been nice? Right.

We consolidated those lots. We did a lot revision. So that was done prior to this asking of a major variance.

Okay. And then your neighbor-to-be to the north owns the north one-half of lot 38 and the north one-half of lot 39. Okay. So where you are building the new property on 435 Nevada Street, is entirely on lot 40, and there will be a buffer at this point to your north.

Correct, there'll be a 20-foot, if I get my variance, there'll be a 20-foot buffer.

The setback between this lot and the other lot.

There'll be 20, and then on the other one, there'll be a 7 1⁄2.

Right.

So it'll be 27 1⁄2 feet. Correct.

And you currently don't live in the neighborhood now, is that correct?

Sorry, Bill. Yes, I have a house right across the street.

Okay. So you're familiar with the HOA. You're familiar with the neighbors. You're present there. This is not a big shock surprise that this is a process that's taking place. Everybody knows everything in the neighborhood. That's what I assume living in Tahoe over the last 10 years, yes. I think that's all the questions I have at this point, Mr. Chairman, so thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Walder. Further questions of staff or Mr. Rowland? Commissioner Lyle?

So this has not a whole lot to do with this variance, but are you planning on living in this house or are you planning on having it as a rental?

I'm Bill Owen. I'm really lucky. All three of my children were born in Tahoe. My oldest child, 36, is moving there with her year-old baby and husband, and they will, if you would have approved this last year, they would have already had a house.

I want to know who is your contractor. That's impressive. Any further questions? And no further comments from staff or Mr. Owen. I'm now going to open the discussion to the public on this matter. If there is anyone that would like to speak, please come up to the podium, write your name, say your name, and I suggest you do that before you start speaking, and that way you'll get your full three minutes. Seeing no one, I am going to close the public discussion and return the matter to the commission for motion or further discussion and ultimately action. Vice Chair?

I'm trusting TRPA on this. You know, we just have a variance to approve, and I think it's a big house, but it's not up to me. I'm just on the variance. So if there are no other comments, then I will make the motion.

All right. Please do.

I move to approve major variance application 2026-DP-MVARM-0002 based on presentation, discussion, and the ability to make the findings.

Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and second for approval in accordance with the report that we have before us. And now I will open discussion on the motion. Commissioner St. John?

I plan on supporting the motion, if that's appropriate for me to say at this time. I personally believe that this is exactly why the variance process exists, because you have a lot that is not economically developable under the current code, but the variance allows it to be developable. It allows the owner to get the full economic benefit of his property. And I do believe that this is one of the major reasons we have a variance process.

Thank you, Commissioner. Further commentary? Mr. Chair, if I may. AJ, our Attorney General, who is now our District Attorney. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. AJ Hames from the District Attorney's Office for the record. There were three recommended conditions of approval in the staff report. I just wanted to clarify whether the motion intended to incorporate those conditions.

Yes, the motion does incorporate the conditions of approval.

If there's further discussions, I have but one point. There was an individual, and I apologize, I didn't disclose this earlier, that came up and said, is there going to be a big VHR, was the question asked of me. And my response was, that's not before the Planning Commission, and that would be a completely different process. with respect to a short-term rental, and that is not what is before the Planning Commission currently. That was my response. Further discussion? Seeing none, let's take a vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The variance, the motion passes unanimously.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you, Linda. It's a very comprehensive report. I say that in the presence of your boss.

I'm sorry, it's Bill Olin. The employees and staff were fabulous on this lots consolidation and this, they went above and beyond. And I hope Lucille didn't retire because of this.

That is matter number one. I'm going to turn now to matter two for possible action. And this one is an ordinance for recommendation for approval, Ordinance 2026-1672, which is an ordinance creating Chapter 20.850 of the Douglas County Code pertaining to art in public places and a zoning text amendment to section 20.660.050, open paren, capital N, close paren of the Douglas County Code, decategorizing, quote, murals, close quote, as a, quote, use of community significance, close quote. Brooke, 82. Community Service Director is here with us today to talk about this particular matter. I may remind the commission that we had just on July 14 a special use permit for building art, and it predated our recommendation or our lack of recommendation for this ordinance, depending upon how the vote goes today. But that's the issue. We've seen it before. Brooke, thank you so much for being here, and I hand the entire matter to you.

OKAY, THANK YOU, BROOK 80 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR. I'M JOINED HERE WITH BRIAN FITZGERALD. HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE CARSON VALLEY ARTS COUNCIL. SO TOGETHER WITH BRIAN, TOM DELAIRE AND HIS STAFF FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND AJ FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROBABLY FOR ABOUT A YEAR. WE'VE GONE THROUGH VARIOUS ITERATIONS AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE SOME MOMENTUM AND THEN WE KIND OF TOOK A BREAK AND THEN REVISITED IT. With the coming of the mural that is being painted at this time, we felt it really important to move this forward. So the pathway for public art is more streamlined and a more simple process. So this is what we're bringing forward for you today to talk about. And so just a little bit of background in history. I know you guys have this in your packet, but I'm going to highlight a couple of things that I think are important. So in 2020, when Douglas County adopted the master plan, they did talk about having provisions and a plan and a program for public art. Public art is something that has been talked about for over a decade with the 2013 Douglas County Valley Vision, the 2018 Plan for Prosperity, and then also the Economic Vitality Plan, which was in 2021. Then our current strategic plan also talks about public art. The Douglas County public art in public places plan is a project that we worked on in about 2023. We hired a consultant to help us develop what a public art plan would look like. That plan went before the Board of County Commissioners in 2024. where they approved it. Part of that plan was some language in there that talked about what some provisions to the county code could be possible to help with the public art, specifically murals, but public art in general, more easier for individuals to get through and to clarify in the code what public art is and what the process should be to bring public art to the community. So once the public art plan was approved, the Douglas County entered into agreement with the Carson Valley Arts Council as the Public Art Advisory Organization, the PAAO, we'll call that to make it more simple. So they have been designated as the entity to help facilitate bringing art to the community. This code outlines how the PAAO will engage with people in the community and what their role is bringing public art. It's not a mandatory process, but it is a voluntary process because we recognize that there might be a member in the community or an organization who would like to bring public art to some of the facilities, but they don't know where to go. They don't know how to get started. They might not even have an artist. They might have funding that's available to them, but they need the next steps. They need help. And so the PAAO has been established as an organization that will help bring public art. They will help create a committee based on individuals who might have a special interest in sculptures or painting, things like that. So we have a group of individuals who have an expertise in one form of art, help bring these art projects forward. So this ordinance implements aspects of the art plan. So the PAAO is one of them. But it also establishes an application process. It does remove murals from a different part of the code. It is included in this code. And it creates an application process. It is a very simple application. basically an acknowledgement from the individual who is bringing art forward saying it meets these criteria. And then it will also help us create an art inventory so we know what art is where. We wanted to make sure that the individuals who are bringing the art forward in any of the towns were compliant with what the towns require. They acknowledge that they will comply with what the towns require. It's an administrative application with a very low fee, which the planning department will set in order for them to move their project forward. Title 20 will still require an easy building permit for any kind of art that would need a foundation or that would be affixed to a building. So that process will still stand. I do want to note that this proposed amendment will not be inconsistent with an adequate public facilities policies contained in this title. It is compatible with the actual and master-planned use of adjacent properties and it is a county-wide program and any project approved will comply with the 20 title 20 code and that no project will adversely affect adjacent properties and so we're recommending to take this to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval in the August 20th meeting and then September for the first reading and then September 17th I think for the second reading So I gave a very high overview of the code. The code does define what different types of art there is. So that's always been really unclear of what is art and what kinds of art would be included in this title. And then a pathway to bring public art. So I'm happy to answer any questions.

I have one question to start, Brooke. Is the restriction on political speech still in the ordinance? That is to say, the art that we had previously approved and indeed had a discussion on tried to omit overtly political messages with respect to what would constitute community art, but I did not see it in the ordinance.

brook ad community services director if you look at section 20.850.060 the application to install murals that really is the only section where we are talking about um the like an attestation and acknowledgement from the artist that it will comply with these factors and aj i don't know if you want to help on this part with the political piece but

AJ Hames from the District Attorney's Office. The art is a form of speech, and so it is a protected form of speech, especially when it is not incorporated into any kind of commercial speech. And so there really are no political constraints on art, and there cannot be under our Constitution. So those are not incorporated into this ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you, AJ. I was not speaking of constitutional issues. but rather to impose a political view on the community with something that is semi-permanent where the community has not had input to be able to object or say, you know, half of the population does not believe, or more than half, in what this says. In order to avoid the kind of disputes that might arise from a, oh, something promoting something that is not desirable to the mass of the community in the Carson Valley or even in the Tahoe Basin, we had suggested that we avoid overtly controversial political messages in the allowed artwork where it comes by virtue of a permit that we are allowing or even paying for part of it. And that was my concern. I recognize that free speech, this is not commercial speech, but it may be political speech that is sanctioned by a public entity where I don't think it would be appropriate. It's not a picture of the United States flag. You follow me? It may be advocating something quite different and maybe adverse to the United States of America or Carson Valley. So, A.J., that's where I'm going with it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand the question. There really is no way to tell people that they cannot do something political with, say, the side of their building or the side of their structure. Certainly, I think it's the policy of the county to not install any political art. So anything that the county would be involved in would be nonpolitical. And the mural at the art center, I think, is a good example. It celebrates art. It celebrates music, dance. It's not a political piece. I don't think public funds in Douglas County, controlled by the county, would ever be used for... for that kind of a purpose. But we as a county also cannot impose regulations on the public that dictate what they can do speech wise on their property. And so we've tried to avoid including any of those types of restrictions in the ordinance itself. And that is the reason.

Brooke 80, Community Services Director. Thank you, AJ. I did want to say that as part of that section that I called out earlier, if you look at number four, the only piece that might address that says, an acknowledgement that the mural will not be obscene or counsel viewers towards criminal violence, obscene material in that which, when taken as a whole, appeals to the pertinent interest in sex, portrays sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, lacks serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value as determined by an average person applying contemporary community standards. That is really the only section where we address that. Part of what has taken so long for us to get through this process is really looking at what is the pathway to public art on public facilities And then what does the county have the ability to do as far as public art on private individuals' facilities? And so this is a lot of discussion that we've had back and forth. If there is going to be art with public funds on a public facility, then that process will go through the Board of County Commissioners and everything, and there will be a public process for approval. But the private citizens, their pathway is a little different.

I suspect that if somebody puts something that the public deems offensive, the public will handle it.

Well, I'm not advocating self-help. And I didn't mean for my discussion to imply what Vice Chairman has alluded to. However, one person's riot is another person's peaceful demonstration. So I just don't want to get caught up with anti-U.S. items in favor of calling it this is art. That's all. Commissioner McKillop.

A couple of questions. There are actually, there is another arts group in Douglas County. I just want to make sure, because if I don't say this, their friends will be mad at me, that their input will also be a part of the process.

Brook 80 Community Services Director. The Arts Council was designated as the art organization, but they have the ability to create panels of artists throughout the community. And so that is when it will reach beyond Carson Valley Arts Council and they will work with artists within the group to create the panel to help, you know, move projects forward.

And that sounds good. The other thing is, when we look at this, we hear two words all the time, Minden and Gardnerville. Some of us don't live in Minden or Gardnerville. I live in the Ranchos, and we have several parks. We have several places that would be good locations for art. I just hope that the whole county will be considered for projects. Thank you.

I apologize, sir. I didn't overlook you. I just wanted to get the comment from the commission.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could, Brian Fitzgerald, President Carson Valley Arts Council. The role of the Arts Council is outlaid in the ordinance language and through the Art in Public Places program. We'll be designated as the public art advisory organization, and so a lot of the concerns that you're voicing is that if we are engaged in the process of new pieces within the community, We've been involved in all the documents that Ms. Ady had referenced as far as the planning documents, strategic plan, plans for prosperity, and we're fully aware of what is appropriate within this community, especially when it falls on a public facility. Yes, there are some concerns with... what a private residence could do with their property or on their private residence or private building. But if we are engaged, before it gets to the point of something being put up that has a public outcry, I would like to think that the Arts Council would be engaged with that process and talking about what would fly and what wouldn't as far as content. And so I fully expect the Arts Council and engaging with other community citizens, other groups, and it really depends on where it is and which entity may have some restrictions that we're going to want to make sure that we're following established protocol and so that uh a process before it gets to the point of slapping something on the side of the building will have that input and dialogue that i think we could all expect and would hope for for this community i sincerely appreciate your commentary thank you further questions or comments uh uh commissioner st john and then we'll go to commissioner lyle do you have the next thank you chairman i'd like to follow up on that so when uh

when you pointed out paragraph four in that section .060 and it goes obscene materials, blah, blah, blah, it lacks serious literacy, blah, blah, blah, as determined by an average person applying contemporary community standards. So I guess my question is, is that what you're going to be doing as the PAO? Is you are the... average person applying contemporary community standards so you'll be looking at them in accordance with that paragraph that brooke pointed out and that will be part of your recommendation on your review is that how the process is going to work brian fitzgerald carson valley arts council in short yes Okay. Okay. And can I ask one? Thank you for that. I thought the answer would be yes, but it wasn't real clear that you would be taking that stand.

One second, Commissioner St. John. Yeah. AJ, did you have a comment on that last?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AJ Hames for the record. So the... The only restriction, so to speak, on any kind of art is that section that Miss Adie referred to. Right. That is a – that is different than – Well, first of all, that restriction comes from Supreme Court case law. So all of that language in that paragraph, the reason it's included as is is because that's what the Supreme Court says are sort of the bounds of government restraint on speech. And so those are the only restrictions as identified by the Supreme Court. Separately, the PAAO is a voluntary step in the public art or publicly visible art process. So if a person, if a private citizen wants to install art on their property and it's gonna be visible to the public, They can go to the PAAO for guidance and they will assist them with the design and implementation of that process. They can suggest materials that are going to hold up in the weather. They can suggest whatever they want. They don't really have any restraints on what they can do with the applicant because they're voluntary. And so certainly they would be offering their take on community standards, but they could go beyond that and recommend color schemes if they wanted to. I mean, because they really are there not as a restriction, but as a service to assist the applicant in sort of forming an idea of what to do as far as art.

Thank you very much from our district attorney and that very helpful commentary. Commissioner St. John.

Just a real quick question. Just semantics. So, decategorizing murals as a use of community significance. I'm not really sure what that means, but I think what that means is a mural doesn't have to go through the special use permit process. Is that basically what that's saying?

This is Tom DeLair for the record. Yes, that's exactly right. The only section of code that has it is for the special use permit process, and it is being removed. It is shown in your Section 2 of the ordinance. And we're going to strike out N1, which is the use of murals falls within this definition.

So murals are no longer use of community significance.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Lyle.

Thank you. First, I have to say, that mural that's going up on the theater is stunning. It is looking so good. You guys did a really good job selecting the artist and getting that moving forward. It looks really well. I have two thoughts. First... In the past, when I have ever had to deal with public art and murals, there's a difficulty in distinguishing between commercial speech and artistic speech. And I'm not sure if someone has the side of their business and they happen to put this beautiful mural up, but put their sign on there, how do we delineate between that as commercial speech or as a mural?

So a mural could also be commercial speech. If it's commercial speech, it would be subject to the restrictions in our sign code. But it might also be a mural, in which case the person would go through the mural approval process.

Okay. So would the entire mural be considered their sign? Or, I mean, how are we going to make that delineation? It's not clear to me that that component of potential issue has been kind of clarified in here.

Yeah, it's a good question. I don't know that we've thought that piece of it through. My thought was that it would be, that the entire mural would be considered a sign because it is a single work of art. And so the mural would need approval through the mural process, and the sign would also have to comply with the sign code. I could foresee, though, a situation where an applicant might come forward and say, well, I put a box around my mural. business name and the rest of it. And then I guess we would have to take it on a case-by-case basis. But if further, if people seem to be using the mural application process as a means of sort of short-cutting the sign regulations, that is definitely something that we could come back to later and address. At this point in time, I think what What Ms. Ady has prepared and what Mr. Dallaire prepared is a very thoughtful ordinance. And I think it would be, you would be able to go down both tracks with one application. And like I said, if there's a problem, we can always revisit it in the future.

Okay. The other question I have, section... The issue to install murals, that section, applications, it says the director is going to approve it, but who's the director? Is it the director of community services? Director of?

It's me. Okay, it's you. Yeah, it's community development.

Community development. Because I didn't see anywhere in here that it said community development director was approved. Who was reviewing the application?

It's in Title 20.

Okay.

In the beginning of it. Okay. Yeah. It identifies who the director is. But also, to go back to your last question on the application, it's going to be, I think it was a $25 review fee, right, for the application, Kate? I don't remember how much.

Was it $25? I think it was. $25. We're going to go to the board.

now in October with the fees, but we're gonna add that fee in and we'll have an application for this as well, but we'll be able to monitor what's coming through and on people's specific buildings and be able to have some sort of record associated with all the art that's in the county we'd like to have as a specific application so that we can track it in the future. and know how many of these facilities there are in the county. And so I think we'll have to take it on a case by case basis, but where they're intermingling a sign and the mural, I think we can address that at that time through that process.

Okay. I think that's going to be a challenge. But I trust that staff will do their best to try to delineate between those two things.

And there's an appeal process that comes to you. Okay. When they don't agree with the director.

Perfect. Okay, thank you for that.

Thank you, Commissioner. Actually, that is a terrific, very good, terrific process, because it does provide for not only appeal, but a second pair of eyes on such a thing. If we get that kind of combined issue, and frankly, giving flexibility to beyond the guidance that is provided in the ordinance is not a bad thing because there's a precedential issue. If you let them do it, then you've got to let them do it. You've got to let them do it. And I'm sure that we all are going to remain mindful of that circumstance. Commissioner Walder.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Brooke and Brian, Excellent work on this. You are both tremendous assets to the county and the community, and I want to thank you for all of your hard work, both paid and unpaid. So thank you very much. Secondly, I think the ordinance is very well drafted. It obviously has to have some flexibility, but I think it's, as AJ said, got the proper prescriptions and restrictions. I don't want to get into a big debate on the First Amendment. Art is obviously protected speech, but as AJ and I have discussed many times in the past, speech is not totally free. There are restrictions. The Supreme Court has put restrictions on free speech. You can't have fighting words. I would hate to see a piece of art, perhaps a sculpture that would depict maybe a known public person being abused or hung, something like that. There are obviously limitations on speech, even in the form of art. But I think you've balanced things carefully and correctly. AJ, congratulations. You have done a very good job on drafting this. And I'm very comfortable with what we have before us today. So thank you very much.

Further commentary? Vice Chair.

Thank you. Been waiting for this. I love this. Question. With regards to the PAAO and the application, will there be a pamphlet or a set of sheets that have the application along with guidelines or helpful hints or something to help people through the process so they're not just coming in and taking notes? You'll have all this information together?

Brooke 80, Community Services Director. Yep, we can certainly create something like that. We want to provide information to people so that the process is easy and streamlined and they understand what is expected of them.

Thank you, Commissioner. Are there any other comments, questions? I'd like to open the matter to, I'm sorry, staff, no further comment. I'd like to open the matter to the public. Are there any commentary from the public? Please state your name, write your name before you start speaking, and that way you get the full benefit of the entire time that you'll be able to speak.

Good afternoon. My name is Mary Claire Boucher. Last name is spelled B-O-U-C-H-E-R for the record. And I'm an applicant with Leadership Douglas County this year, and I've had the pleasure of speaking with Brooke recently about the mural project specifically. But I'm here today not only to be civically engaged, which I encourage everyone who has an opinion about art to do so, but also to voice general support for this ordinance. With regard to public art, I believe that public art draws interest. It creates pride of place. It can increase tourism interest, as we're seeing with the documentary that's being made as part of the mural. And art is beautifully subjective, as we were just discussing, that with that subjectivity creates meaningful conversations. And as I'm hearing the conversations about free speech and things along those lines, I know that nothing that comes to the county as far as public art will happen in a vacuum. And so people will obviously be allowed to voice their opinion about that art. But I also think there are beautiful examples of how art can create meaningful placemaking in other rural counties. If you look at Winnemucca, Ely, Carson City, and these are communities that have done really, really well by themselves by allowing robust public art in their communities. I have no further comment. Thank you very much for your time, and I do love the mural. Thanks for your work.

Thank you very much. Further public comment? Seeing none, I'm going to return the matter to the Commission for a motion, further discussion, or action. Vice Chair.

I was reading through the comments that we got online, and sorry to the town of Gardnerville, but I agree with the comments that say that panel that they have, Welcome to Gardnerville, is unprofessional and childish. The one at their station, when you draw on the curve, I don't like it. It bothers me. Bless the artist's heart. I know she did her best, but I don't like it. And I haven't seen the one down at the theater. I'm waiting until he's all finished and waiting for the ribbon cutting, which is when?

Friday, August 14th at 1 o'clock.

Okay. That's important we get that out there, the 14th at 1 o'clock. But I'm looking forward to, through this process, more professional work. Looking art, I think that bringing children and young people in to do art is important, but there's a place for it. And I think through the process, we can educate them and utilize their talents doing other types of art as opposed to eight by 10 or 10 by 12 billboards at the entrance to our towns. We can get them into the crafts, welding, and doing other types of art. I think there's a lot of opportunity bringing kids in and young people. So I'm very excited about this program and the involvement that you have brought and the organizations working with the county and with our trades. I think we have a lot of potential for beautifying. Have you ever been to Sheridan, Wyoming? They're downtown. They have sculptures, bronze sculptures, on every block. And they're professionally done. They're fabulous. You can look it up online.

But I would love to see something like that throughout our downtowns and actually all over our county.

But anyway, that's my two cents. I'm an artist at heart, and I try my best. Thank you again.

Thank you, Vice Chair Casey, for the cogent comments. Are there any further commentary or a motion perhaps? Commissioner Walder.

I'd be happy to make the motion. I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they approve Ordinance 2026-1672 as presented based on the ability to meet the required findings as set forth in the staff report presentations and the Planning Commission discussions.

I would like to second that.

Thank you. We have a motion for affirmation of the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The matter passes unanimously. Thank you very much, both of you. Excellent job. That concludes the two items for action. And now it is time for closing public comment. Public comment will be taken on those items within the jurisdiction and control of the Planning Commission or those agenda items where the public comment has not already been taken. Is there any closing public comment? Commissioner Lyle, you actually have the ability to make not only a public comment, but you have the ability to make a comment from the commission.

Well, I am taking this advantage of either opportunity. It has occurred to me, I've been reading through the draft of the Title 20 update, and it occurs to me that one item that is in much discussion now that doesn't seem to be included in the ordinance are data centers. I know that that is very controversial in certain areas. I know we have one small data center that I'm aware of at least, in our community. And I'm wondering if it is not timely for us to perhaps have a discussion at some future meeting. Here comes Kate to weigh in. Or she's leaving. She's on her way out. To find out how we might incorporate that land use so we're not caught flat-footed in the future.

Excellent observation. Thank you, Commissioner Lyle. And I see Kate Morales up at the podium.

Thank you, Chairman Bruno. Kate Morales-O'Neill, for the record, Community Development, Principal Planner and Manager. Good question, Ms. Lyle. So, We've had two inquiries into the planning department regarding data centers. The county manager's office has had information from commissioners about the subject also. It's a hot topic as we know in Nevada. We actually just had a meeting this morning regarding data centers and I will be working with Mr. Hames, I think the step forward that we are going to take is hit pause for right now. It is not an allowed use within our code. So what we want to do is establish what that looks like. with the proper development standards, where would we allow these, so on and so forth, prior to moving forward with anything. So I anticipate in the next 90 days we'll come to the Planning Commission first with this pause and what that looks like and why we're hitting pause right now. I can tell you with some research that I've done, specifically one that was eye-opening was from Loudoun County. Back in the early 2000s, they did not have an allowed use, same situation. So they made it fit basically in their code because it was a good tax revenue type situation. And so they made it fit under office rules. office space, office use. Again, this was 20 plus years ago. And then what happened is the data centers ended up buying up all those properties. So they ran into a lot of issues. They have since rectified that. They have the most per capita in the entire nation, Loudoun, Virginia, Loudoun County. I suggest you look up if you want to kind of do some research. I can actually, I'll share with you the link I just shared it with Mr. Hames earlier. It's very resourceful and there's the 15 best practices and these are all things that we will, I will incorporate when we move forward in the next 90 days. It might be sooner, but as you know, we're short-staffed right now, and we've got a lot on our plate. But that is something that we are aware of, and we just want to make sure that we establish it correctly and that we don't have any pitfalls in the future. You know, water is a precious resource for us, so on and so forth, power. is also a precious resource. So we want to make sure that if we do move forward with that use, that it's done correctly. So great question, but we will see you in the coming months, I promise.

Kate, that's a fantastic presentation. I agree wholeheartedly with pushing the pause button. from personal experience in the county of Santa Clara and particularly the city of Santa Clara and data centers when they were not as prevalent and, in fact, were perhaps more unique some 20 years ago for Facebook, Yahoo, and other entities at that time requiring large server access. areas that could be cooled that had power, etc. Now, at that time, and there's much to be learned from those folks that went through it early on, power sources like the city of Santa Clara, which has its own power company, its own power hydroelectric, its own power uh, gas generation. So it's, it's, it is something that is going to be extremely complex, extremely in depth. So as not to use resources or squander what we have, uh, in Douglas County as we move forward. So I'm wholly in favor of developing and to the extent that you form a committee, I'm perfectly willing to serve on that committee. And, uh, and as we go forward with, uh, I'm not going to say restrictions, with allowing on the positive side data centers and what would be necessary to allow them.

It's not only water usage, but one of the big things that's causing a lot of problems in a lot of jurisdictions is the fee that's being charged to residents for the upgrade of the infrastructure to, as you're saying, to power These centers, those upgrades being charged for us would be Nevada Energy. Those are being passed on to the consumers. And the everyday cost of running the data center is not as huge as the upgrades. And Nevada Energy is already passing on the charge of upgrading the Green Line, which runs along 95 on the eastern side of the state, to consumers. And that's causing a lot of problems on the eastern side of the state and along the 80 corridor. So SLUPAC, the State Land Use Advisory Planning Council, where I sit, other counties are coming forward and saying, we have data centers that are coming to us and this is what they want to do. What do we do? So SLUPAC is looking at it as well. Because they're, like you have in Lyon County, you have There's a lot of misinformation going around that it's all water, but it's not water. You've got the noise. You've got the energy, as you're saying. You've got the cost being passed on to the consumers. You've got the land use and incompatibility. We're an agricultural county. I appreciate that Kate is on top of this and the county is on top of this now because I am waiting for and their interest in the expansion of AI to come down like a hammer and take away our local control.

A very good point. Let's be mindful of certain things such as the ordinances involving cellular telephones and those kinds of things for the common good. I put that in quotes. They can be self-sufficient, however. There are a number of jurisdictions that have dealt with this, and I think we should just learn from all of those jurisdictions, not stamp our feet and say no, but rather here are the issues. And if you can comply and satisfy these issues, we can move forward. And that way we will not be caught short. The comments are absolutely cogent because you don't want to be paying for something that provides a benefit solely to the owner and perhaps to those that are running some type of an AI program. But rather, the community has got to be considered. So thank you very much. I agree. Any further public comment? Seeing no further public comment, I am going to adjourn this meeting.