City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

All right.

Yeah.

She's still over in the end.

Is Carlos still here? Yeah.

you

Madam Clerk, can I get confirmation on audio?

Yes, we can hear you.

Perfect, all right. This is the beginning of the City of Reno Planning Commission meeting. Today's date is Thursday, June 4th, 2026. The time is 6 p.m. I am virtual for this meeting and we have an absence. So I am going to delegate my duties as chair for this meeting to one of our past chairs, Commissioner Velto. Commissioner Velto, could you please take over?

Yes, thank you, Chair. We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Gonfiantini, can you lead us, please? I pledge allegiance 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. Can we please get a roll call?

David Jockerman?

Here.

Christina Del Viard? Here. Tina Gonfiantini? Here. Sean McCoy? Here. Alex Felto? Here. Jacob Williams and Manny Becerra are absent, but with that we have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission.

Great, thank you. We'll now move to item A3, which is general public comment. This item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment. Do we have any request to speak forms?

We do. It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter not agendized for possible action on today's agenda. When you're called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you aren't attending the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you'll be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. First up, we have Donna Keats on behalf of the Ward 2 NAP.

Hello, everyone. It's Donna Keats. I am here to comment on the 935 Manzanita case, LDC 2600068, side set back deviation, because I submitted my NAB comments a little late, and I think they might have gotten truncated. So hopefully you got them and you read them. Let's see. If I do it, does it go this way? How do you do this? Overheads? How do I do the overhead? Oh, okay. Okay. So these are parts of my NAB review thing. One thing, it's really unclear what you're being asked to approve. There are two references to 50% deviation requests. The PC staff report for tonight is requesting a 50% deviation, and part of the application also says 50%, but exhibit B, which is the updated map for tonight's presentation, shows that it's gonna be a 20% deviation, not a 50% deviation, and there's another plan that also looks at a 20% deviation, and the main application requests a 40% deviation. I kind of think before you approve this, this application should be cleaned up so you actually know what it is you're approving. Understand that a two and a half foot deviation into the side setback then covers all the bases in case they miss the mark on their survey, but it seems like, what do they really want to do? Does the applicant know where the property line is? Why is there so much given here? Okay, so there's that one. Now, they have, when I look through all of this, we have some, I have some issues with the application. in that the site plan is not accurately reflected. There's no before and after pictures, so we were not presented any information to make any assessment about how it does or does not fit into the neighborhood. There were no measurements on the drawings, so you can't see what the size of the structure is that they're talking about. The west-side setback is reported as three feet, which is not a legal setback. All the accessory structures were not shown. There is a possible code violation in that there's another unpermitted structure in the back, which appears to be about 400 square feet. So I have some concerns about the total lot coverage. When I actually added up everything, it's supposed to be 40%. In my mind, if you approve this, combined with the illegal structure that you can't see, that's about 400 square feet in the back of the property that might invade the setback back there, and their house and their converted garages, I believe they're precariously close to or exceed the 40% maximum building coverage. So I think there's some problems here. They need to be measured out, figured out, and see what you can do. And so the best thing then that is important to me is I gave you a few reasons why you can't make, a few findings you can't make. We can't do the one about character of the neighborhood because the NAB wasn't given any presentation. We were not given a justification. We asked the applicant directly, why do you need to go into the setback? There was no answer. It turns out they got a Cybertruck they want to put there, but we weren't given that information. It doesn't enhance any corporate design, do any of the above. Checkout number three, you have that written document. Was that my bell? Anyway, I think this is a special privilege because the next-door neighbor was here about six weeks ago or two months ago, did it completely legally, built it before the fact, had everything in place.

Thank you, Donna. You're 15 seconds over. I didn't get a yes on that when I asked, so I kept talking.

Anyway, I think that you have reasons to maybe hold off on this approval. Thank you very much.

With that, I have not received any additional public comment for item A3.

Is there anyone online seeking to give public comment?

No, there's no one online with their hand raised.

Okay, with that, we'll close public comment and we'll move to agenda item A4, which is approval of the meeting minutes for June 4th, 2026.

We are on approval of the agenda, Commissioner Valto.

Oh, I'm sorry, my apologies. Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

Commissioner Gompiantini, motion to approve.

Commissioner Delvier, second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Okay, the motion carries. Now we'll move to agenda item A5, which is the approval of the minutes for May 7, 2026.

Commissioner Gompiantini, motion to approve.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

I was not present for that or the next one.

Commissioner Jockman, I will second that motion.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed? I abstain.

Commissioner McCoy, I'll abstain as well. I was not present or participating.

Okay. The motion received three votes, so I believe it carries. Okay. Approval in the minutes for May 7, 2026 is approved. Next, we'll move to agenda item B, which is staff announcements.

Thank you, Commissioner Belto. Just a couple quick announcements. First, we'd like to welcome Commissioner McCoy. He comes to us from the Ward 2 NAB, so it's his first meeting tonight. We look forward to working with him. As you've probably heard, the city council extended the moratorium on data centers until August of 2027, which means we will no longer be accepting any new permits or applications related to data centers. And they've directed staff to essentially draft a new ordinance. So we'll be working with regional planning, who's already working on a public outreach and stakeholder program. So we will be working closely with them, and I'll be bringing updates back to this board as that progresses.

Are there any in progress right now or not?

We don't have any new ones that are currently under review.

Okay, so we don't have to worry about that until. Okay, thank you.

The only other council action since our last meeting was the council did approve the Fairfield Farmhouse's zoning map amendment that was heard by this commission last month, and that's all for updates.

Thank you. We will now move to the public hearings. We will open up item C1 which is a staff report for possible action of case number LDC26-00068, 935 Manzanita side setback deviation.

Good evening members of the planning commission. Jeff Foster associate planner for the record. I am bringing you yet another side setback deviation this time for 935 Manzanita. Welcome, Commissioner McCoy, nice to meet you. I am thankful that I didn't forget my notes upstairs and have to run back up and run back down and be winded at the podium at the beginning of my presentation, making an absolute fool of myself. All right, so the project site is about .28 acres in size, located on the north side of Manzanita Lane, about 210 feet east of Lakeside Drive, and this is near Manzanita Park. The home the property is currently developed with a single-family home that is used as a group home and the request before you as a major Deviation to reduce the required side yard setback from five to two and a half feet Zooming in you can see that the site is entirely surrounded by single-family homes and the key issue that staff analyzed is compatibility with surrounding land uses the zoning district is single-family five units per acre and and the master plan land use a single family neighborhood. And on the screen are two goals and policies that are in support of the proposed request. Some background, the single family home was built in 1966. The applicants purchased the home in 2021. and subsequently built a covered carport in the east side yard within the required five foot setback without approval. As you can see on the screen here, the carport is approximately one and a half feet from the fence. The applicants do need to submit a building permit to downsize the carport and bring it into compliance with the two and a half foot setback that would be allowed with the approval of this major deviation. Regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses, side yard areas function as private open space and are generally appropriate locations for things such as carports. This particular carport, which is set back approximately 55 feet from the street, is partially screened by a solid gate. You can see on the screen there on the left is part of the gate. Of course the gate is open, but as you can see, it does provide some screening when fully closed. The proposal does not compromise the health, safety or welfare of the adjacent property owners. And in fact, the neighbor to the east has provided a letter of support since the carport needs to be downsized. Staff is, of course, recommending standard allowed days and hours of construction per condition number five. And staff is also recommending a setback verification letter to confirm the proposed placement of the structure when downsized complies with the two and a half foot setback per condition number six. Here are the recommended findings for a major deviation, and staff can make all recommended findings. Here's the recommended motion. I'm available for questions. The applicants are here. They will not be making a presentation, but they are available for questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Foster. We'll now come back to the commission for disclosures. We'll start on my right with Ms. Gonfiantini.

Commissioner Gonfiantini, read and reviewed materials.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Commissioner Delvia, received and read materials.

Commissioner Valto, same disclosures. We'll go to Chairman Jockaman.

No disclosures, Commissioner Jockaman.

Okay, we'll now open up public comment on this item.

Yes, thank you. We do have a public comment from Donna Keyes.

Of course you do. For the record, my name is Donna Keats. This is my personal comment, not my Ward 2 NAV comment that I'm about to make. And I have... Well, I'll just throw this up here anyway. Here's your building coverage problem. You go and add it all up. They've got... I don't know, about 900 square feet of stuff they're proposing to do, and you've got about the other 400 feet on the backside of the property, which would be here. That's about 400 square feet right there that you don't know about, and all that takes it way over the 40% maximum building coverage. And for me, this is my personal comment, this is one of the reasons I'm here, being pissy about it. No property taxes paid in a year. They take care of 10 old disabled people. And guess what? Their business license expired a couple days ago. There's a whole raft of business license notices. It goes all the way back. And the computer kept saying, notice to comply. This is all computer, no human intervention. This goes a long time back. So I have an issue with this special dispensation, special privilege, because they already built it. but you have another structure, you probably exceed building lot coverage of taking care of 10 old people. You know what kind of buildings they have back there. These people are in wheelchairs, and that's why I'm here speaking as a resident, because so if you are at all inclined to have some heart about the people who live there and what might really be going on with this unpermitted license. Here are three findings that you really can hang your hat on. This is special privilege. It seeks relief from requirements after it was built without a permit. Next door neighbors didn't get that. They really did get that. This is a special privilege. I don't know if you remember the next door neighbor things. Jeff can tell you all about it. There was no justification, no cause, and for somebody who wants to park a cyber truck under this covered area, yet can't pay their property taxes, nor keeping a business license current, I'm sorry, that irritates me enough to come down here and tell you those things that I'm not allowed to say as part of the NAB review because it's not part of planning's purview. But now you have that information, if it matters to you, I've outlined why there are findings that you can't make, plus they didn't answer the board's questions, I think I said that in my board comment, didn't answer our questions, and they didn't say why they actually really needed this, and they were pretty cagey about how many people actually live there. That's me being personal, and I take it personally because I really have a strong feeling about, I don't care about this if they were actually just doing it on their own property. But I care about this because they have 10 people they're taking care of. So thank you. I hope you heard part of my babble in a meaningful way. Thank you.

With that, we do not have any other additional public comment for this item.

Is there anyone online? Thank you. Okay, with that, we'll close public comment and come back to the commission for questions. Please, lead the way.

Commissioner Delviar. Jeff, I have some questions. And some of it has to do with this case in particular, and then just sort of in general, because we're seeing a lot of these things kind of coming up. And so in this case, it looks like they built it, and now they're trying to take it down and rebuild it to specific specifications, but they still need... They're still over their limit. Is that what I'm understanding?

Clarification what over what?

So they're there they were at one and a half feet now They're trying to bring it back to two and a half feet, which would be 50% Right of the five, right?

So yeah, they're so the carport currently is approximately one and a half feet from the property line which obviously is three and a half feet too far into the side yard setback and they would be proposing to basically downsize the carport another foot to bring it to that two and a half that would be allowed if you approve the major deviation.

And if we don't approve it, then they can either go to the five foot deviation or... To the five-foot setback. Sorry, five-foot setback. Yeah. Exactly. Okay. And then, again, just sort of in general, we're seeing, again, more and more of these coming up with the setbacks and the deviations. And I just want to make sure that the planning commission in the city of Reno is... being thoughtful and intentional about longer term. Again, a lot of these homes were built a long time ago. The next one we're going to talk about was built in 1940. There's all these things that are kind of coming up. And I'm just trying to understand how we should be framing this so that we are looking at things the right way. Does that make sense? That might be more of a Mike question. I'm not sure.

So, yeah, I mean, I'll take a stab at it at first.

Thank you.

You know, I think you obviously have an obligation to review the case at hand for its, based on its own merits, but it's impossible to divorce yourself from the fact that you have seen a raft of these coming through and one wonders why. I don't have an explanation of why we're seeing a bunch of these. I don't know if building compliance is getting a bunch of, you know, code complaints. This one, of course, generated from a code complaint, right, initially. So I don't know if there's a bunch of those happening for some reason, but clearly we are seeing a blooming ton of these lately. So, but I don't know, Mike, do you have any other thoughts?

And I think that's, several of the ones that have come back recently have been a result of code enforcement action. And so this is essentially the only path forward to legalizing those other than completely tearing them down.

And is there, I mean, is there any thought long-term for the city of Reno to look at some of these neighborhoods and try to evaluate like, again, like we did with ADUs, like how do we make it so that people can update appropriately for the size of cars that they didn't have in 1940?

We are having those conversations internally. And if you look at, there are some standards, for example, for infill where we allow for setback

Essentially matching setbacks of surrounding properties and those sorts of things in more established neighborhoods But it is a discussion we're having internally just because we have seen so many of these in in the last few months yeah, and you know one of the things that kind of That that I think about is I understand that the neighbors are okay with it But at some point some of these houses might be sold and maybe the new neighbor won't be okay with it So I'm just trying to be mindful and and make sure that we're intentional about this, but that was all I had. Thank you Thank you.

Yes, sir. Commissioner McCoy.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioner McCoy, for the record. Jeff, how you doing? Thank you for being here tonight. You bet. I won't hold that longhorn emblem on your shirt against you being a lifelong Sooner, but we'll get into this stuff here. Are projects reviewed like this reviewed in a vacuum? In other words, are you only looking at the four corners of the subject property? Are you considering what's also happening around the property line?

As far as what?

Well, as I'm sure you recall, the neighbors directly to the east of the property line were here in March obtaining permission to encroach two and a half feet into the very same side setback.

Right, right, right.

So with this approval, if this were to be approved today, am I correct in thinking that there will only be five feet of total space between structures and all of that five feet is a utility easement with a fence running down the middle of it?

You are exactly correct.

Okay. Do you consider that, from your perspective, when you're looking at these proposals? Are you just saying, oh no, I'm stopping at their property line and not worried about the fact that there's only two and a half on the other side as well? Do you consider that when you analyze it?

It's kind of both. I mean, yes, I'm looking at As I mentioned to Commissioner Delviar, you know, this case on its own merits, right? So I'm looking at this property, but it's impossible to also not recognize that the adjacent property owner did also apply for that two and a half foot setback. But there's nothing in code that would limit, you know, adjacent property owners from applying for setbacks adjacent to each other, right? So if it meets building code and if it meets fire and everyone else's concerns, you know, that the individual departments are responsible for analyzing, then there's not a reason for staff to say, well, just because the property at 905 Manzanita back in March got an approval for 2 1⁄2 that, you know, that this property shouldn't also get that same 2 1⁄2 approval with the sum total of five feet between the structures.

Okay.

There's nothing that would, you know, tell me that that's not an appropriate...

Do you think the Reno Fire did it the same way? Do they look at it and go, okay, this is what we're going to be left with as they sign off on this proposal?

That's a good question. They do review each case and they did review this case and had no concerns. I don't know for sure that they were specifically aware of the two and a half on the other side. That's an interesting question, but Again, I mean, in theory, the adjacent neighbor could have already built their house two and a half feet, you know, with the approval. And, you know, the fire department, you know, could have then looked at that and taken that into account. So the two and a half feet is allowed, you know, with the major deviation. And there's going to be a fence running down the property line, as you pointed out. Which effectively creates that you know that barrier as well But yeah, I mean that the fire department did review this case and it didn't have any concerns chair couple questions.

Okay. Thank you. I Think somebody brought this up earlier. Maybe you can just provide a little bit of clarification on the application seeking 40% But staff report says 50 is that just more of a noticing, you know issue for the for the city where we just say hey They're seeking two and a half feet and then anything below, it covers anything up into that point? Or can you provide some clarity? Because the application was 40 and there was discussions about three feet, two and a half feet. Does that also include another 10% without having to come back?

So the application was originally made for three feet, which is 40%. And during the review process and eventually leading to the actual noticing Um, the applicant decided that they would like to seek the full 50% deviation, IE two and a half feet. Okay. So just because the application was made at 40% doesn't mean that they don't have the right to request the full 50%. And that's what was noticed for purposes of this hearing was the 50%. So the, the, the fact that that changed from 40% doesn't jeopardize the legitimacy of the application.

And just the last question for you, Jeff. Exhibit B, the proposed site plan, did indicate something about a three-foot setback on the western edge, but that has nothing to do with what we're considering today. Is that right? It was Exhibit B on the... Can you pull up my staff report?

I'm not sure if it's the diagram that I have in...

proposed site plan and there was public comment about this earlier this evening it just it seems to say it's it's the next slide over perhaps or the slide before it yeah i don't know that i have that's that picture in my head no one more no so it's not in the presentation it was exhibit b i think to the uh the materials okay okay

In any event it there is a Western setback line that just says three feet and I just wanted to make sure that We're not here discussing that tonight that's not a part of this request I don't know what that is, but I don't know if you had any yeah, so clarity Recognize again that that materials are submitted initially and then materials are submitted during the review process the final application Irrespective of whether or not it's shown on a site plan is for two and a half feet so when the building permit is submitted and that needs to show two and a half feet. And I will be the one reviewing that building permit. But regardless, the plan that needs to come in, if this body approves the two and a half foot tonight, then the building permit that needs to be submitted would need to show that the setback is two and a half feet. And per condition number six, we will also require that setback verification letter. So irrespective of something that was shown at three at some point in the process, two and a half feet, if that's what you approved would need to be, you know, is what's shown on the building permit.

And is this limited to the, because what I was asking about was the west side. Oh, the western side. Right. Nothing to do with this application?

That has nothing to do with the current application. Okay. So, yeah.

All right. Thank you. That's all my questions for staff. I did have a couple of questions for the applicant, but if anybody else had questions for Jeff, I'll definitely defer until then.

Thank you.

My question is for the city attorney's office as it pertains to the third finding under a major deviation. So we heard a comment about whether or not this is cost effectively whether or not this is constituting a special privilege. This space is a little confusing for me to navigate. So we've obviously heard that properties in the vicinity have been granted the ability to have this deviation. In my review of the satellite imagery of the area, it looks like there are other properties in the vicinity that have infringed within the five foot side setback that is that we're discussing tonight. So for the city attorney's office, can you please help me understand how I should interpret that finding and whether or not Particularly, I think in the comment, it mentioned that we have a situation before us where it's not in compliance and the requesting compliance and that that was different from other side setback approvals rendered by this body. Is that how we should be looking at this finding? Or is it just generally whether or not there are other like approvals in the vicinity of this property?

Jasmine May, for the record, I think because you have to take these kind of on a case-by-case basis, you really should be looking at it within the language that the finding requires, which is, is it inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity? So in a situation where they're asking for a non-compliant property to be brought closer into compliance and given the situation of other properties in the vicinity, you should take all that into account. Does that answer your question?

I think so. I think you're saying there's some level of merit to the case in the fact that there's a little bit of a distinction there. Or is that not what you're saying?

Yes, that's correct. But while you are kind of cabined by that finding, it also allows you to look in the vicinity to make sure that it's not inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. So that's kind of where I'm going with that.

Okay, thank you. Nothing further. Mr. Chair, I guess I'll yield my time at this time.

Thank you. Mr. Foster, I have a couple of questions for you. Ms. Keats raised an issue about the maximum building lot coverage. Does a parking structure, is that included within the maximum building structure size on a lot?

Yes, it is.

And for this project, would approving this structure result in some sort of Title 18 violation or there being too much coverage of building space on the property?

No. And the failsafe that you have on that is that, again, there is still a building permit that is required. So when that building permit comes in, one of the things that the building permit reviewer, me, Looks at is building coverage. So whatever the allowed coverage is in the zone if it's not obvious That they are below the threshold 35% whatever it is then as a part of my review I would ask for a lot coverage calculation and so and that would include the structure that exists in the on the northern part of the parcel and So whether or not that structure is conforming with regard to the setback as far as the building coverage, I would be looking at it to all of the building coverage, including the carport, the main residential structure, and then whatever that structure is in the back would all need to be calculated and be demonstrated to be below the allowed building coverage maximum.

Does the building coverage maximum fall within Title 18?

It does. Right. Yes. So this particular zone has a lot coverage maximum in Title 18.

And I guess I was asking that question to kind of get to the next question, which is, do we have any way of knowing whether approval of this structure will then violate the building lot coverage requirements?

mean in theory we could do a calculation right now but again there's in my mind there's no jeopardy in approving it because when when I reviewed the building permit they're going to have to demonstrate that they're below the maximum so that could mean that the two and a half feet isn't enough or maybe they need to shorten the carport or they would need to do something to bring or you know remove the structure in the back whatever they would have to bring that down to below the maximum if they are exceeding it

Okay, thank you. I also have a question about major deviation finding number four. This is granting the major deviation will not be materially detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. There was a concern raised about access to and from the building and that this structure could impede access for the people living in the building. Do you have any thoughts on that concern?

Where was that concern raised?

Ms. Keats raised the concern because of the type of facility that is run in this house.

Oh, okay. Right, the group home. Yeah, I'm not sure how the carport on the side of the building would have anything to do with impeding the access to the building by the residents of the home. Yeah, whether or not it's two feet or five feet from the property line.

Great, thank you.

You bet.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I have um, thank you Jeff Commissioner Dolby are so One of the questions I have is you say that it's compatible with the surrounding areas, but again, I didn't see on the previous, and again, I'm not trying to compare with the previous cases that we've seen. We did get to see what it was going to look like. And in this case, we don't see that. So it's hard for me to say or to make the finding that it does, that it is compatible because I'm not seeing what it looks like. Does that...

Okay. Yeah, I mean, in my mind, you're simply taking that wall that's on the right-hand side of the picture and you're moving it a foot and a half, you know, further away than it is now. Sorry, a foot further than it is from the fence. Yeah, closer towards the car, for example.

Yeah.

So, yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, it's just simply moving the wall.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions on the commission? including questions for the applicant?

Yeah, Commissioner McCoy, I do have questions for the applicant. Hi. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming up. It appears from reviewing the NAB Ward 2 comments, the Neighborhood Advisory Board, I think you guys went to last month, or appeared for indicated that this was a group home. Is that correct? Now, is this a category one or category two? Two. Two, okay. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that means that the residents are not physically or mentally capable of moving to safety within four minutes?

Yeah, that's what it says.

Okay, so these are going to be more on the disabled side of things. Okay, so given you have that kind of front gate that's kind of enclosing that piece, you have this section here With your proposed deviation, are you concerned at all about the ability of your residents to escape a potentially dangerous situation with only a two and a half feet between your carport and that fence? Is that limitation something you guys have considered? And if you have, kind of a follow-up to that is whether or not your proposed changes are something that you have to submit to the state for approval, to approve the changes made at your facility.

Yeah, I... Because this was on the side of the building, we also have the front where all the handicap, you know, including on that side, which one of the room that we have. So all of this one here is in compliance with the handicap requirements.

I don't think that the, that will be an issue with accessibility.

Would you mind stating your names for the record, please?

Yeah, I apologize. My name is Joseph Castillo. Good evening. Yeah. planning commission.

This is Jose Castillo. Commissioner McCoy, if I can jump in too. As Jeff noted, when this comes in for building permit, this will also get routed through our building department and the fire department for review, and they will be part of their review as well.

Okay, so they'll take care of any potential issues there. Because I'm imagining if there's a fire in the front and they have to go to the side, we don't get to order where the fires are going to be or emergencies are going to happen. is that setback gonna be an issue? That's what I'm trying to work through tonight. The other question I have for you is, at the NAB, they specifically asked if you have to rework the carport structure anyway. Right now, you are, over even what is permissible under a major deviation. So you have to rework this. This isn't a matter of we just get the paperwork and everything stays the way it is. You have to move this structure. If you have to do that anyway, why not just move it the additional two and a half feet, meet the five foot setback, and call it a day. So what I'm trying to figure out here is how this major deviation enhances the overall design of the project or otherwise benefits the public, because I'm trying to see where that two and a half feet is really getting you something, why you need this in light of the fact that you're tearing out posts, you're doing all the work anyway. Why not just go back another two and a half feet? Can you explain that to us tonight?

When we were presented to the We needed to fix this project. We were just given the option that the two and a half feet would be allowable. Uh, we were just trying to get in compliance and that was the course of action that we thought would be best as we were advised.

Okay. I'll take that answer. Thank you.

Any other questions from the commission for the applicants? Okay. We'll come back to the commission for discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Who wants to get us started? Commissioner McCoy.

Commissioner McCoy, thank you, Chair. I question how the major deviations really could enhance the overall design of the project. The analysis provided seems to be from the point of view of reducing the non-conforming deviation as opposed to supporting an encroachment from the standard five-foot setback, which is what we would have if the applicant was here seeking permission and not forgiveness. I'm also really struggling with the findings that this major deviation will not significantly impact nearby property, or that it will not be materially detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed finding even limits itself, which I'm not sure, you know, again, first day on the job, so excuse me. I'm daring to be wrong in everything I'm saying. It was limited Does not compromise health safety or welfare of adjacent property owners I don't know if that's a finding specific that we're supposed to make if we're limited to just adjacent property owners or not I wasn't aware of that. I haven't I haven't thought about it from that that limited kind of viewpoint so for me, I don't I don't kind of just believe that support from the adjacent property owners standing alone is is sufficient evidence to satisfy the required findings. And I know in this situation, they're both mutually agreeing to each other's deviation. I could see why they would want to do that, but I don't know that that's enough for the rest of the area, the rest of the community, the neighbors, all the other reasons we look at setback deviations to kind of justify that. So I'm kind of struggling with some of these findings. The Title 18 question I thought was valid. That's a new one for me to kind of think about. We might be making a finding or finding that it doesn't violate Title 18, but the reality is we don't know. And then relying on the building permit process to catch it if we did approve it, even though it violates Title 18. You know, again, I'm a little less concerned, I guess, about that than I am some of these other things, but that's kind of where I am tonight. Thank you.

Commissioner W.R., I echo everything that Commissioner just talked about. Those are my concerns as well. I don't necessarily see the benefit. I do see some issues from the public safety standpoint, and so I'm having trouble making the findings right now.

Chair Jockman?

Yes, so I paid attention to Commissioner McCoy's question about the second major deviation finding about whether or not this enhances the overall design of the project. The applicant's response that it would be granted. I don't share the same concern about the first finding, that it will not significantly, let me rephrase that. I can make the first finding, and I think the support from the adjacent property owner is almost a bit of a force majeure for that finding in this context. I'll go to the fourth finding. Really for me, and I've said this as a part of other items, when I see fire blessing that on the, Public health side, that's really how I view this finding in the context of a side setback. So I'm able to make that finding. Right now, I do have some concern about the answer that was given for that second finding. The way the finding operates, it's an or statement. So it's a public benefit or it enhances the overall design of the project. And I don't know if that answer is there on that one. that's where i'm at currently so i guess i would ask you commissioner valto as acting chair if you wanted to ask the applicant um or if we were to go back to questioning that would be something i would want to ask again yeah happy to um and i'll just know before asking the applicant uh chair jockman i do tend to agree with you i think finding number one uh

The burden is almost the opposite. The grantee of the major deviation will not significantly impact nearby properties. So the burden is almost on the opposition to establish it will impact them. And I haven't heard any evidence that it will impact nearby property. I do have some concerns about this Title 18 issue. I think my concerns were resolved by Mr. Foster. Condition number one is that at the time of the building permit, they will ensure compliance with Title 18, but that almost makes the finding kind of redundant if they'll have to comply with Title 18 in the end. That said, I do think condition number one in the staff report resolves my concerns about Title 18. But I do would like to ask the applicants if you would mind answering a few more questions. So the major deviation finding number two requires us to determine that the project enhances the overall design of the project operations of the project or provides a public benefit. Can you help us understand how us approving this proposal would enhance the overall design of the project or the operations of your residents and facility?

First of all, we have, you know, there's some requirements with parking, and that will also help them, you know, because it's closer to that side. And a lot of, you know, we have like 10 people in there that will add up some space for, you know, those other people that are bringing their families in there. It's closer.

Okay. This question was kind of asked earlier by Commissioner McCoy, but if we were to not approve the project, would you still be able to build a structure that is compliant with existing code and does not require a major deviation?

I almost think that the wheelchair accessibility through that area is a little bit better with the two and a half feet setback. Bringing it back another four or three and a half feet might make it even more narrow, excuse me, just for wheelchair accessibility. It'll make it a tighter space.

The door that's right there, is it typical that you will use that door to bring wheelchairs into the building?

So not that door. We actually have a double door entrance. I apologize, but it's like, along the, around the corner of the building.

I follow. So you're saying that if this were wider, you'd be able to have a vehicle further away from the structure and someone could come by in a wheelchair and it'd be easier for them to get to the door on the back? Yes. Any questions from the commission?

Commissioner Jockman, may I ask a question?

Please, please, please.

So that answer seems to be getting at operations of the project on some level. I would see operations of the site. I guess I'm curious, and this is sort of in deliberations here, I'm curious how other commissioners view that because if you have multiple points of access perhaps for handicap, just in my head that sounds like we're improving operations of the project. So I'm curious for any thoughts as we progress in deliberations about that.

Commissioner McCoy? Commissioner McCoy, for the record. I'm still a little concerned because when I asked about the safety in the two and a half feet on the side with regard to residents that are in wheelchairs, I was told they don't go on this side, that everything's in the front, that's our access. And now, after I've already asked the question and it's been answered that no, we picked two and a half because they said we could go to two and a half. And I get that. That it doesn't really feel like this is a project proposal that's been made to really come in and say we need this major deviation and here's why it is key to our operation or it's important for public safety. It's really now, this is the only factor that's holding them up and can we come up with something. I don't know if that's the situation or not, but I've heard multiple answers And reviewing the NAB comments as well, I'm not really sure which way to go. I would have liked to have seen it spelled out in the application. I would have liked to have heard that answer at the NAB. I would have liked to have heard some kind of explanation justifying why we are deviating two and a half feet from the five foot setback, given all the reasons we have setbacks. When we have other applications for setbacks, we hear the reason. We hear why it's important that the building goes out this far, so we're not taking away space from other areas. This was simply a matter of we wanted to just conform, and we were told two and a half was as far as we could possibly go with this permission. I don't see how the five-foot setback doesn't continue the operation or why that there would be a basis for that finding. But that's just me, and I'll leave it there. Thank you.

So... We're at a point where we can either take a vote or you can have an opportunity to, we could potentially try to continue this item and have you come back when you can better evidence why this would benefit the project. Do you have a preference as to whether you receive a vote tonight and then there'll be given an opportunity to appeal to city council if that decision is adverse? Or would you like the opportunity to try to substantiate the rationale for this improving your operations as a facility?

I think we'd like the second option if possible.

Okay. And I believe we have to take a vote to continue the item. Is that correct? So with that, would anyone like to make a motion to continue the item before we take a vote?

I'm just going to stay on the record that commissioner had to leave. So she left the meeting at 6 47 PM.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Jasmine made it for the record. Please continue it to a time. Certain date and time. Certain.

The, It is, and for Commissioner McCoy, this is, so we can, for everybody's reference, we have the ability to make a motion to continue the item. If that motion fails, we would take a vote, vote yes or no on the item.

Commissioner Delvier, I can make a motion to continue. Can you put the slide?

If I could just jump in, I would recommend that we would continue this to the August 5th planning commission.

Thank you.

August 5th.

August 5th.

Excuse me, not August 5th. July 8th.

July 8th. I think next planning commission is July 1st and July 15th, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct?

I'm looking at the wrong year on my calendar. My apologies.

I'm like, somebody give me a date. July 15th, is that? July 8th.

July 8th.

July 15th.

July 1st or 15th?

15th, July 15th.

Any preference?

I would probably say July 15th, just with the holiday.

Oh yeah, okay, fair enough, okay. In the matter of case LDC 2600068, this is Commissioner Del Vier, and I am suggesting that we move this to July 15th so that the applicant can revisit the reasoning behind the need for this deviation.

We have a motion to continue to a date certain to address major deviation number two. With more evidence, is there a second?

Commissioner Jockerman, I will second that motion.

All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, then the motion carries unanimously. We will see you July 8th or?

15th, right?

July 15th. Thank you. Okay, well now open public hearing C2, which is a staff report for possible action in case number LDC26-00074. Siddiqui Conditional Use Permit, and I apologize if I said that improperly.

All right, good evening, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nathan Gilbert, Principal Planner, Development Services, presenting LDC 2674, Siddiqui Conditional Use Permit. So this subject site is a through lot, 0.15 acres, located about 100 feet west of Wells Avenue in between Byrne Street and Claremont Street. The existing structures on site are a single-family home that was lawfully converted into a commercial occupancy and a commercial garage to the north facing Byrne Street. The request tonight is for a conditional use permit to reestablish a single-family home use in the general commercial zone. So you can see from these street views, the lot is pretty much split in between that commercial garage, which is used as an appliance store facing Byrne Street, and then kind of the street aesthetic on Claremont Street, where that previous single-family home occupancy is on Claremont. Master Plan land use is suburban mixed use, Wells Avenue mixed use. Supporting policies are retention of existing housing stock and a mix of housing types. The zoning district is general commercial. It's also in the Wells Avenue Neighborhood Plan overlay. That was adopted around 2008. However, that site has been zoned commercial since at least the mid-1980s. Background on the home, the single family home was built in 1940. It is on the city historic inventory for the Wells Avenue Conservation District and identified as a minimal traditional housing style. Permits for a change of commercial occupancy were approved in 2015. It's been used for a pet grooming business essentially. and the commercial occupancy brought the use into zoning conformance, but its conditional use permit would be required to return it back to that single-family occupancy. So the Wells Avenue car wash was built in 1988 on the single-family home parcel. That site where the car wash is and the home and shop were all one site back in 1988. You can see that they built the site design. They kind of left the house just there, incorporated it into the overall site design. Since then, the detached commercial garage was built subsequently. It was initially a smog shop just north of the single-family home, and now it's used as an appliance shop. And at some point, we're not exactly sure. The subject parcel was created separating the home and commercial garage from the overall car wash site. So key issues when evaluating this type of CEP is compatibility with surrounding uses. The single-family home is consistent with the multi-family single-family homes to the west. The residential occupancy is desired to rehabilitate the structure back to its historic use. The building no longer functions as part of the commercial car wash site, and if approved, 60% of the parcel will still remain for commercial activity. Conditions 1, 5, and 6 are recommended to require site improvements. These would be standard code and code enforcement issues anyway. They would include building permits. A change of occupancy would require a fire-rated wall. Landscaping and removal of the outdoor storage. These are, again, just code enforcement issues on the Byrd Street side. So key conditionally used permit findings include land use and design compatible with surrounding development, The change of occupancy to a single family home is compatible with the budding land uses. The land use is consistent with applicable development standards. The non-conforming use, returning it to a single family home, is allowed with an approved CEP. It would allow for residential use of the existing home and facilitate preservation of the neighborhood character, again, in that Wells Avenue Conservation District. The characteristics of the land use are reasonably compatible with uses in the surrounding area. the appropriate land use transition to abutting residential zoning. Byrne Street portion of the site preserves the commercial zoning intent and will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Conditions one, five, and six would improve the site and further this objective. With that, the recommended motion is on your screen. Mr. Siddiqui is here. I'd rather not give a presentation, but it's available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Gilbert. Okay, we'll come back to the Commission for Disclosures, and we'll start with Commissioner McCoy.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Commissioner Delvear received and read information, and I'm familiar with the site.

Chair Jockaman.

Commissioner Jockaman, no disclosures.

Commissioner Valto, no disclosures. We'll now open public comment.

We have not received any public comment for this item. We do not have anyone online with their hand raised.

Thank you. Okay, we'll come back to the commission for questions of the applicant or Mr. Gilbert. Commissioner McCoy.

Thanks. Yeah, this will this will be much quicker. I just in reviewing the nab comments There's some discussion about Tax issue. I don't know if that even comes up or that's a part of the city, you know process or not But that was just some of the comments that were raised that I just The applicant seemed to indicate that they had no idea that this process this zone change had happened They thought that this was residential. They've been paying taxes as if it were residential the whole time and So it was it was a little different to kind of hear that presentation But then the application mentions a dog grooming business from about ten years ago I don't you can clarify clarify for us any of that kind of confusion, but I was kind of like is this the same application Yeah, I thought the same thing Nathan Gilbert for the record You know staff doesn't go to the NAB meetings.

Mr. Siddiqui did show up and answer questions, but you know, this is kind of technical the As I mentioned, the zoning on the site has been, at least as far back as our paper maps go, 1986, a commercial zoning designation. That's why the car wash was able to be built. When that occurred and that single-family home remained on the site, that was what we call existing nonconforming. When it was converted to a commercial occupancy, that brought it into conformance with the historic zoning. So I think that's just more of a misunderstanding of what the request is. The request is for a conditional use permit to reestablish a previous use.

Commissioner DelBier?

Commissioner LVR, thank you, Nathan. Just a little bit of clarification for me. Again, it makes sense. I understand in general why we would want to do this. But just kind of curious, it seems like it kind of flips back and forth every few years. So what sort of prompted this time to have it go back to

Residential my understanding was mr. Siddiqui was seeking financing. I got okay. Mm-hmm. Got it. Perfect. That's all.

Thank you Chair jock come in. Do you have any questions for us?

Uh, no questions, just a comment. This is a conditional use permit that is requesting, you know, a non-conforming use. The use is adjacent to parcels that this would be conforming on. Uh, we have no public comments in opposition. I am, uh, I'm able to make all the findings on this matter and happy to, uh, make a motion once you would entertain one, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Uh, Chair Jockman, I would entertain a motion.

In the matter of case number LDC26-00074, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and I can make all the findings.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

Commissioner McCoy, a second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Thank you. The motion carries. Mr. Siddiqui, good luck with your project. Thank you. Okay, we'll now move on to agenda item C3, which is a staff report for possible action in case number LDC26-00076, McCarran Quail Park. Do we have a presentation from staff? Mr. Gilbert, good to see you again.

Hello, Nathan Gilbert, Principal Planner Development Services. So this is a 7.22-acre site located about 900 feet west of the intersection of South McCarran and Kitsky Lane. The request this evening is for a tentative map to convert six existing office buildings into 42 commercial units. So the site includes the earliest portion of the Greater McCarran-Quell Office Park. This portion of the overall park was developed between 1989 and 1991, with the remainder of the center developed through the early 2000s. Portions to the east were subdivided through the parcel map process. You can see those lines. That's typically how you do a commercial subdivision like this. However, the applicant is requesting the tentative map to expedite the final mapping process so that basically you can create all those lots all at once. Zoning is professional office. Master plan designation is suburban mixed use. Supporting policies include existing businesses and modern office environments. So the request would convert six buildings into 42 individually owned commercial suites and common area. Essentially what all this would do would create suites that are leased into suites that are individually owned. There'd be no change to existing number of suites or the site layout. There are 274 onsite parking spaces and landscape common areas will continue to be managed by the master association. So this is Fairly straightforward, these are the key tentative map findings. Again, there's really no change to the project other than the lines drawn for change in ownership. With that, the recommended motion for approval is on your screen, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Do we have a presentation from Mr. Oswald?

Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Brooke Oswald, Acting Chair, Mike, Planning Manager. My name is Brooke Oswald. I'm with the EREC group. With me tonight is John Munton with Venture Engineering. We're representing Ribeiro Companies on this project. Just go over really a little bit what Nate did. I tried to mix mine up a little bit so we get a little bit more. It's basically a tenement. We've got six buildings, 42 units on seven acres, no new construction. All of this is existing. The professional office with the SMU, so this is a conforming use and has been active and running as an office park for several decades now. There's no new development, so no grading, no new structures, nothing that would impact the neighbors in any way. There's no change of use. The remaining professional offices, the parcels are just going to follow those existing parcel walls, the wall parcels, and create those flexible office suites. There's no impact. There's going to be no change to traffic, access, circulation, parking, or landscaping. The site operates exactly the same as it does. As Nate mentioned, there'll be a master landscape association that will take care of all the landscape, the services of the roads, and any common open space. It's already built and occupied. The six single-story buildings, there's approximately 81,000 square feet. It's been active and moving both as an office and medical facility for quite some time. It already meets the standards. We've got 34% landscaping. That's 14% over the landscaping. That landscaping is also mature and filled in, and it's a beautiful office park. We've got our parking meets the standard. Our infrastructure's in place. Roads, water, sewer, power, and emergency services, it's all being done. And it conforms with RMC, and that really is looking at our access, driveway, sidewalk. All of that is compliant and in place. So ownership, why do they want ownership? Ownership keeps business in Reno. It converts those 42 lease suites to individually owned suites, letting Reno businesses own their own space rather than rent it. It fills a gap in the market. For sale, small formless office product is really in short supply in Reno. Retention and investment, the owners and occupants stay longer and revest in that space and also that area, so it continues to strengthen that McCarran area. And there's no entitlement stack, no new infrastructure demand, no measurable benefit offsetting the impact. Our master plan is substantially in conformance. Some of the big ones is that support of existing buildings and then those modern office environments. We did go to the Ward 2 NAB. There were no objections. Staff recommends approval. They did put some conditions on that. We are in agreement with all those conditions and accept those. And then we just request we ask the approval of the TennoMap subject to those conditions. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now come back to the commission for disclosures. Start with Commissioner McCoy.

Commissioner McCoy, no disclosures.

Commissioner Delviere, no disclosures.

Chair Jockman. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures.

Commissioner Valto, no disclosures. We'll now open up public comment.

We did receive public comment for this item that were forwarded to the commission and entered into the public record. But with that, I do not have any requests to speak forms in person and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised.

Thank you. We'll now come back to the commission for questions of staff or the applicant. Commissioner Delvear, do you have questions?

I do. Commissioner Delviar, this is, it might be for you I'm guessing or the applicant in general. So I think this is great, I think it's a great use and it makes sense and I can make the findings but I'm just curious, could this potentially impact some of the businesses that are there now if they're unable to actually buy?

You know, I can't speak for the applicant. They're not here tonight, but what I'd anticipate, they will continue to lease as they buy and move through that.

Perfect. Thank you. That was all.

Seeing no other questions, would anybody like to make a motion?

I can make a motion. Okay. If I can.

Can we put the motion back? Thank you so much.

Thank you. Commissioner Delviar, in the matter of case LDC2600076, based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the tentative map subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. And I can make all the findings.

Your motion, is there a second? Commissioner McCoy, I second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

The motion carries unanimously. Thank you so much. Good luck with the project. We'll now move to agenda item D, business items.

Thank You commissioner the one thing that I did forget to mention under my general announcements is that I will not be here for our next meeting So mr. Gilbert will be filling in for me So if any members of the Commission have questions for staff or need staff coordination for that meeting, please reach out to Mr. Gilbert perfect We'll now move to agenda item e the Truckee Meadows regional planning liaison reports Chair jacquemin were either

Yes, I can speak to that. I guess Commissioner Ganfittini is still absent. So we met last week and there were some appeal items pertaining to Lake Ridge. There was a noticing issue that was a result of the newspaper i forget the name in the city of sparks that did not post the notices as such we took public comment on those items again there was the sierra reflections item that uh was con was receiving public comment and then ultimately the meeting was uh continued by the chair so that item is ongoing and will receive more public comment and be heard at a later date. I have not yet been informed of what date that will be unfortunately. That concludes my report.

Thank you. We'll now move to agenda item number F, which is future agenda items.

I just have a question for Mike. We started training, then we stopped training, then we started it, then we stopped it, and then we're supposed to hear from the fire, the police, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

We purposely postponed some of the training knowing that we would have a new commissioner. So you will see those starting back up over the next few months. Okay, thank you. You bet.

Now open up public comments. This item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comments Do we have any requests to speak forms? We do not and we do not have anyone online with their hand raised seeing no one in the room We'll close public comments and now we are on to adjournment Commissioner McCoy Would you like to make a motion?

Thank You chair Commissioner McCoy for the record. I move to adjourn.

You have a motion. We have a second

Commissioner Delvia, I second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Have a nice night.