Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 1:00. I will call this meeting of the Douglas County Planning Commission to order. Paul, will you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Everyone, face the flag. 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.

I will ask everyone to please silence their devices and then I will open public comment. It's time for opening public comment and it it is limited to three minutes per speaker on matters over which the planning commission has jurisdiction. While we want to encourage expression of all views by members of the public, if content is disruptive, irrelevant, willfully misleading, or disrespectful to the public, PC or staff, the individual will be told to stop speaking. Public comment will also be taken on agenda items that are identified for possible action and there will be closing public comment. I will now open public comment and ask you to please sign the roster, say your name for the record into the microphone. Please come forward and I will ask for the first speaker. Seeing no one rise, I will close opening public comment and ask for approval of the agenda. Are there any changes or additions? Jim

and Lori seconds. We have a motion by Jim McCallip and a second by Lori Lyall. All those in favor? I. Motion passes unanimously. Bryce Klutz again is absent. And now an approval of the minutes for the meeting of October 14th, 2025. Are there any changes or corrections? Seeing none, do we have a motion? We have a motion by Paul Bruno and a second by Lori Lyall. All those in favor?

Motion passes unanimously. Again, Bryce Klutz is absent. Now we will move to item one for possible action. Discussion on a major variance application DP25-0141. A request to reduce the west sideyard was set back from 7 foot to 0 ft for a 534 ft secondstory edition above an existing garage located at 239 enginehouse circle in the R-058 residential zoning district in the Glen Brook plan area of the Tahoe region. The applicant is Neielson Separate Property Trust 2007 and the applicant's representative is listed here as Keith Rubin Wilson Engineering APN 1418-10-710-074 Lucille Rayo Planning Department presenting Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Lucille Reo, Community Development Seasons Greetings. It is the season of giving and we shall see if the spirit moves you today. Well, all joking aside, [snorts] as you may recall, this item was continued from the October planning commission meeting. The continuence was requested by the applicant representative after it was discovered that the addition had already been built. Staff received a call from the neighboring property asking why this was being [music] noticed as the construction was completed. Staff confirmed that the structure had indeed been built and therefore the item would need to be continued. In addition, staff met with the neighbor on site to discuss the matter and he submitted a letter that has been provided as supplemental material to you describing his issues with the new construction. In the background of the staff report, it states that the applicant submitted a building permit on September 20th of 2024. And then on October 20, October 18th of 2024, the applicant received a correction report stating that um that

approval of a major variance would be required prior to the issuance of the building permit. Staff did not receive response from the applicant or the applicant's representative until August 18th of 2025 when an application for MA major variance was submitted. I would like to add that I have a few conditions from the fire department that will need to be added to the conditions if the item is approved. I can read them now or the motion can simply say and items conditioned by Taho Douglas Fire Protection District and I will list them in the letter if this item is approved. Do you want me to read those items? Okay. Okay. A fuel modification defensible space plan, a comprehensive plan along with a recorded maintenance agreement will be required to clear and maintain defensible [music] space in the 30 to 100 ft zone around the property. A recorded deed restriction covenant. A recorded deed restriction oral covenant will be necessary requiring ongoing maintenance of defensible space, strict adherence to access parking restrictions, specifically no blocking of fire lanes, and acknowledgement of all conditions of approval. NPFA13D automatic fire sprinkler system. Installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system within the structure will be required. Fireer resistant construction upgrades. The project will need to incorporate fireresistant construction upgrades to reduce wildfire exposure. This includes, but is not limited to, non-combustible siding, ember resistant vents, dual pane smoketempered glazing, and rated eaves sophets in accordance with IWIC code. And he asked that we put those in the conditions. Um, Madame Chair, um, shall we proceed with

the applicant's presentation or do you want to start with questions? I think we could go with the applicant's presentation. Okay. So, today we have the applicant's representative, Zach Wood, and the owner's attorney, John Geslin, with presentation for you. just say next slide.

Okay, cool. Good for audio. Hello uh and good afternoon, Chair Casey and commissioners. I'm Zach Wood. I'm a certified planner and land surveyor in training with Wilson Engineers and we're here on behalf of the applicant for our variance item at Engine House Circle. Go ahead. Um I think there was a good analysis and we agree with the staff recommendation. Um scope goes back. We do have a project that is a constructed single family residence with additions over time. Uh we are representing the second floor addition above the existing garage and uh focusing on that for the action for the requested major modification to the variance. Um so we have our stakeholders uh obviously we just talked about the fire district's specific technical conditions. the homeowners association has reviewed and approved the plan set uh and there's past TRPA approvals uh as well. So clearly we know that some of the um issues to resolve in terms of recommended conditions and uh I think we would say we agree with all of those technical requirements for the wildland urban interface code. um may or may not still have review items between different agencies, which we're totally comfortable with. If, for instance, uh the community development building

division needs to review uh some of those technical uh changes for the building a pertinances, the windows, the sighting. Um we're good. Next slide. Thank you. Uh just some basic statistics there. I think, you know, pointing to some of our uh proposed findings, clearly the lot size at uh approximately a tenth of an acre doesn't leave a lot of space uh for setbacks outside of a typical residential construction. Um no other significant site issues, whether it's flood plane or um constraints with TRPA coverage. So, we're good to go. Next slide. Um, we'll have a few of our presentation exhibits making sure that we're capturing the elevations, we're capturing the site plan, and if there's any questions about what is what here, just please uh let me know. So, in this front elevation, we're seeing the addition in the boulder line work above that garage looking left at the exhibit. And um that's the addition uh in question for the major variants. Uh thank you. Next slide. Okay. Reduction. We're requesting from 7 ft to zero for the second floor addition above the garage. Um as well as the eve length to zero. Uh we have the garage as built in 1979. Um, and at that time the garage met the existing rules and exists now in its current location. So, we're talking about the garage only, not the second floor edition as [clears throat] what we would consider to be a legal non-conforming to the setback uh location. Pardon me.

All right. Um, forgive me if the photographs or some things that we had as rendering representations are not correct representations that I make. Um, as we go through, we have several exhibits, but here is our 1979 context. Um, and I do believe this is a rendering. Okay, next slide. And this is a photograph. It's hard to make snow look that way when it's melting off up in Tahoe. But, uh, now we see what the pre-construction garage is looking like. Um, gable end roof facing towards the neighboring property to the north. And we can go to the next slide. Uh, and I think this current context may also be a representation. We do have another photo after it. Now we see the gable end for the garage facing the neighbor gable end for the addition facing the street. Thanks. Next slide. And a current photograph. Uh so we do have the uh neighboring property in that photo. Next slide. Okay. back to our focus on uh the findings that we've proposed and we uh do agree with that because of the legal non-conforming condition um and compliance in 1979 for the garage location uh there's nowhere to build but up. So that's where the second floor additions are. Um there was the major variance application in 2004. Um but sometimes things don't always get followed through with. So here we are in 2025. Um we're good. Next slide. Thank you.

And here in 2025 we have this updated survey exhibit. So this is a very precise location of our property boundary um in question and the existing garage. So those show a very small setback of a tenth of a foot. Um and so this survey was conducted this year based on the structure as it is now and the property boundary. Uh I do have copies of that. It was submitted with our application and I did uh provide another survey exhibit. So I'll have a comment on that after this slide. Okay. Uh shape always I think creates a constraint for lots within a culde-sac. You have a very limited frontage. you need to fit a twocar driveway and a garage if you can. So, it really limits what you're able to do at the front of the structure and the front of the lot. And this clearly has a four or five to one um imbalance between the front lot width and the rear. Um we do have land coverage limitations from TRPA uh and within Glenbrook and [music] uh in the county there have been similar variances uh approved for second story addition. So where the non-conformance is created again vertically rather than horizontally um in those cases. Uh back to that list of existing reviews and approvals, we have fire uh to regional planning agency and the HOA. Um now I will make comment on that additional survey exhibit real quickly

and I do have copies so um I can hand these out individually. Lucille, thank you. question. AJ, can we have this if he didn't bring it off for the public?

Yeah, Madam Chair, AJ HS the record. He did make copies for the public. I don't know if there are enough, but um we'll pass out what we have and if if additional copies are are needed, we can make copies. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, I have one. Um I need and reading the supplemental materials. Uh Paul Aa, I believe, was the builder of the addition. Is that correct? Um within the supplemental materials included the addition plans. Was that the question? I don't think Paul obeyed. I just wanted if that's true, I want to disclose that I know him and he did some work for me, my home on the ranchos.

So, I I thought I noticed that in one of the letters. Yeah, I would say my understanding is is that's correct that through the contractor and and previous plans uh that contractor had prepared them and worked on this project as well. Again, I just want to disclose that he did some work for me on a room edition in the ranchos. And Mr. Mr. McCall, will that in any way affect your ability to absolutely not. So, you'll be able to review the the application fairly and impartially. It will have no effect.

All right. Uh if could we rewind a slide and maybe two because I was trying to get back to our Yes. Thank you. Um so the exhibit that we have as of the hearing right now that was uh provided it is another survey from 2020 and it shows the property line and building coincident. So, uh, John when he, uh, provides comments here in just a minute or two, he can, uh, describe the background for, um, for his acquisition of that because, uh, we just had it apologize for it being late into the hearing. Um really it's to show that in addition to the Wilson survey an exhibit with the application this previous survey also found the same information for the property boundary location within a tenth of a foot. Um so that's why we wanted to add it into the record. Thank you Lucille. We can go forward with a next slide. Um, so in support of the findings with the background of the survey and the location, we also have consistent site plans that have been submitted [music] for both the building permit and the variance that are showing our existing location basically at the zero uh setback. So um with that I will kind of leave my planning surveying technical comments and ask John to complete the presentation on behalf of the applicant. I will be available if there are any other questions. Thank you very much madam chair uh members of the commission. My name is John Galin. I'm

an attorney from Reno. I represent the applicant Robert F. Neielson [music] and the Neielson family uh the separate family trust. Um before we get to the findings which I I'll get to in a moment, I'd like to address the letter that was sent um by the uh the neighbor Mr. Jack Trainer and Mr. Greg Peterson. Uh they're the neighbors to the immediate west. They're the um the two garages abut each other. uh on on the on the pie shape. Uh and so if if if the uh with with a picture uh looking at Mr. Neielsson's house, Mr. Trainer and Mr. Peterson's house is to the west and the two um the two garages uh meet there. Uh they they make five points, five enumerated points in their letter. And um I'd like to focus on uh and there's on one in particular which is the encroachment. Um the they they assert that there's an encroachment on their property uh and there is none. You have uh in the record you have two surveys. There was a 2020 survey which was just passed out to you a little earlier which shows that the uh garage the face of the garage the outside of the garage is coincident with the property line right to the to the zero lot uh line adjustment. Um the existing garage is a uh a non-confirming use. It's been there since 1979. it and there's been no problems with with it with with the garage or any of the uh approvals with that garage. Uh the second uh so the we had a survey in

2020 that showed that it was uh wholly on Mr. Neielson's property. Then there was another survey which was performed this year in 2025 and it shows that the uh the garage is within a hundth of an inch inside Mr. Neielson's line and so so it so it's basically a zero lot line but it is all contained within Mr. Neielson's property. So if you and incidentally those two surveys were provided to Mr. trainer and uh on October 16th and October 22nd of this year to let him uh he had asked if there were any surveys that that showed that the property line and those were provided to him a month and a half ago. So to and in his letter he says, "Well, if you look down the look down the line from the stake, it looks like it's off." But I would I would suggest that this commission rely on the licensed professional surveyors that have that have done this twice on this property and have found that uh garage wholly within Mr. Neielson's um um property. and and and once once that encroachment argument falls and fails, which it does, the variance meets all three uh findings that this that this uh commission has to make. And I'll and I'll go through those in a in a moment. But so, and the rest of the letter talks about a precedent and willful disregard and um and and public policy issues. None of those issues are really before this this this commission. Miss Mr. Neielsen is is here through this application and acknowledges that he should have uh received

this variance prior to the construction. He's here before the board to do whatever is necessary to uh to rectify that to pay whatever fines or uh whatever this board feels is is justified to obtain the certificate of occupancy and he'll go through the the building department and uh and and whatever reviews are necessary there. he'll comply with all the health and safety requirements that that the Douglas County has. And as uh Mr. Wood had said, this project had already been approved by Douglas count Douglas Tahoe Fire. It had been approved by the uh Tahoe Regional Planning Agency as a qualified exempt, which means it was a minor review by the TRPA. And they have a and it's within your uh review. that says that no further action is necessary or required by the uh TRPA. And lastly, the Glen Brook Homeowners Association considered this uh addition. It was noticed to all the uh the neighbors including Mr. Trainer and Mr. Peterson. No objection was made at the time and the uh design review committee of the Glen Brook Homeowners Association approved it without comment. And so it and so the and so the last part of the letter of Mr. Trainer, Mr. Peterson, uh requests that this commission order a bound boundary line adjustment between the two and order them to negotiate and come to some compensation for this encroachment that is non-existent. And with all due respect to this commission, I believe that this commission does not have jurisdiction to order a boundary line, especially one that doesn't that there's no um trespass

or no uh or or no uh violation of any of any law. So what do we have here? We have this commission looking to grant a major variance and the staff has gone through the uh the findings and I'll and I'll and I'll briefly hit them. The first finding is you have it has to have an an exceptional there has to be by reason of an exceptional in this case the shape of the property a pies-shaped piece that really nothing works on those properties without some give and take of the code and that's what uh that we have here. we have a peculiar or exceptional practical difficulty uh and a hardship to the applicant if you apply the strict um rules of the code. The second are the circumstances and the conditions that they do not generally apply to everybody. This doesn't happen to everybody in Glenn Brook. Everybody doesn't have a pies-shaped um uh p piece of land there. Some do, some don't, but this is an exception. This is a a a variance. And this commission in 2004 granted this the same v a similar variance on the same on the same uh garage for another for for a different addition. Those those are different those are plans. And the last thing is granite a variance will not result in a material damage or pre prejudice to other other uh properties. Mr. Trainer and Mr. Peterson would argue that that there's that they're somehow damaged by this. However, they had an uh opportunity to object at the HOA uh design review committee, which they did not. And they and there is no encroachment on their

property whatsoever. It's all contained within Mr. Neielson's property. So the three condition the three findings that this commission must make uh have been met. The staff miss has recommended approval and I would uh uh uh reinforce that recommendation and request that you approve the major variance that Mr. uh Nielsen has applied for. Thank you. I have a question. Yes. on when you were talking about the variance meeting the findings you said it had already been approved by Douglas County. Are you referring to 2004? I I'm sorry.

You said that your applicant should have received the variance prior to the construction. You acknowledge that. Then number two, you say it had already been approved by Douglas County. Are you referring to 2004? There there was a prior variance in 2004 which expired long ago. Okay. And but he should have received this variance prior to construction. Yes, he should have. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Are there other questions? Okay. I will.

Thank you for your time. the neighbor like to come. [clears throat]

Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Jack Trainer, co-owner of 237 Engine House Circle. And, uh, I apologize in advance if I'm not as polished as the attorney that made that presentation. I'm just a just a neighbor. And uh to that point uh we've owned our home for 28 years. And in that time, it's been important to us to be good neighbors. We made an effort to do so. We've made an effort to be a good neighbor to uh the applicant. And to that end, as a result of wanting to be a good neighbor, I'm really not happy to be here. But Mr. Neielson's actions forc us to be here to address his willful disregard for the authority of Douglas County that puts us in this predicament. Had Mr. Neielson applied for planning and building approval prior in the proper order and prior to his constructing the addition, we would have had an opportunity to uh object at that point rather than at this point. and we would have referenced the 2004 um application where a setback was required and stipulated. So, it also required TRPA approval which has never been received. Let me make that correction. And while we're making corrections, let me just address two other comments. Um the attorney said that the the garages abut each other. Lucille can testify to the fact they do not abut each other. never have been, never will be. There are two separate properties. And another correction is there's a lot of pies-shaped lots in Glenn Brook, so that's not a consideration. Finally, to correct one other misnomer, um we were told that uh the plans were submitted to the HOA and that we didn't object. You can't object. If you do, if you contact the Glen Brook Homeowners Association and ask [music] them, is it

possible to object to an application? their answer would be no it is not because that's the answer was what's given to us unequivocally no you can't that's forformational purposes only so let's make that clear um finally in terms of the survey and let me address that for a minute I think that there is some um confusion as to where that line exactly exists because we had a previous survey done which unfortunately I couldn't submit [music] to you because I couldn't find a record of it but it had showed that the property line was onetenth inside the garage, not outside the garage. So, I think that's an area of question. Anyway, I reference the fact that had Mr. Neielson submitted in the proper order, we could have objected. It turns out that his strategy, and that had been uh repeated to me on numerous occasions, uh was to complete the project and then quote ask for forgiveness rather than approval. And considering that Mr. Neielson was president of the National Association of Homebuilders. I find that unconscionable. Um what's really I think of concern to you as well as the specifics of this is the matter of precedence. I think if Douglas County takes the position that this approach is allowable, what prevents anyone from doing whatever they want in Douglas County and not suffering any consequences? I think this would be disastrous. That's why I make the suggestion that a possible remedy that you could um suggest is the boundary line adjustment where the line would be equidistant between the two properties. At least it's an acknowledgement of the fact that a this building doesn't meet uh the 2004 uh requirements which called for 2 and a half foot setback and b it basically calls attention to the fact that if you just willfully disregard all conditions and regulations in Dougl County, you just do your own thing because you might be powerful, you might be wealthy, you

might be able to hire people for your defense. I think that sends the wrong message. Uh, thank you for your consideration. Let me know if you have any questions. I'm happy to answer them now or later. Thank you, sir Kirk.

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. I I have a number of questions, so I appreciate my colleagues indulgence as I walk through some of these things. Um, I think most of them are for Mr. Wood or for Mr. Glin. Uh, so, uh, you can choose who wants to respond to these. First, Mr. Wood, I think you said you're a certified planner and that you are uh training or apprenticing for a survey engineer. Am I correct in that or did I mishere? Uh yeah, Commissioner Walder, I'm not a licensed land surveyor. Uh I have a certificate for a land surveyor in training.

Land surveyor and training. Thank you. And when were you can stay there and uh then Mr. Glin could come up as needed. Uh when were you retained by the applicant? Um I think uh our engagement is as of this year approximately. So within uh between 12 months and 6 months ago if that's enough accuracy. So mid 2025. Yes. Okay. And did you and I mean in in the specific role for uh providing services for the variance and performing the surveying. Okay.

I know that uh Wilson and previously RORO had prepared uh improvement plans and plan sets in 24 and probably earlier. Okay. And did you inform Mr. Neielson that he needed a a building permit for any construction and he needed a variance or um do you know when you informed him of the requirements the county with the client I wouldn't be able to answer that. Okay. At at that time.

Okay. And do you know or can Mr. Neielson or Mr. Gzlin I assume Mr. Neielson is here in the audience. Um, uh, tell me when construction or deconstruction cuz I believe the top part of the garage had to be torn down to build the addition. Can you tell me when that was started? I don't know that off the top of my head. I will look that information up if we have time to Is Mr. Neielson here? Could he uh, he's not here. Just John. Okay. Can you confirm when the building was uh, construction or deconstruction was started? Um I believe it was uh uh started the deconstruction started last fall. So

uh October of October of 2024. Okay. And do you know when it was finished? Um I don't know. It I believe it was in the spring of this year, maybe April or May. I'm not I'm not sure when it was uh completed.

Okay. Well, on some of these things, they're important details, and I think it would be extremely important if uh you were knowledgeable or if the applicant was here uh to better inform us because we have a timeline that uh is uh difficult to accept uh in my opinion. Now, uh I think uh you describe in your letter uh the 434 square ft that was added on as living space. Is that correct? Uh the the space that was added is a uh a library and an office and a bathroom.

Okay. Um and then the most recent survey, I don't see that in our packet. Do you know who did the most recent survey and when that was done? Uh Wilson did it in August of this year. Okay. It it is in your packet. Okay. I must have missed that. Uh so if you can uh I'll I'll look through that or if Lucille or someone can point uh point me to that. Uh now uh I think you said that the garage is a butt. Uh is that correct? When I I looked up the definition of a butt and it says be next to or have a common boundary with and to me the pictures

that's a more accurate description of it that they have a common boundary that the garages face each other and there is a pie shaped uh comes down to probably a foot in the front and maybe three feet in in the back. uh at at the back of the garages, maybe even four feet. Yeah. So, it's clear to me in the pictures, and this is probably the most uh on pack of page 115, they don't are they're not touching each other. No, no, they are not touching. And I would guess I had some land survey experience about 50 years ago. I would say that looks like about 10 ft maybe to me. No, they do not have butt. Okay, that was an that was an incorrect word that I used. Okay, thank you. But the but the they face each other and there's no living spaces that face each other from either property.

Okay, great. Thank you. And do you know and I'll ask Mr. Trainer this too when I get finished uh with my initial questions. Uh do you know does the if you can stay there, do you know does the garage for the trainer property violate any setback uh requirements? I I don't know.

Okay. All right. Um, I think that's all I have uh uh at this point. And if perhaps if Mr. Trainer, while uh while this is on our minds, uh could you tell me does your garage violate setback uh requirements or have you received a variance uh for your garage? And I know you haven't been there at since the property was built, but and could you give me an approximation of how far away from your garage uh the other garage is? come, please come to the microphone so we can make sure you're heard and on the record.

Um, we bought the property with the property lines in existence and we have not come forward. We believe we were in uh conformance concordance with what requirements were when we bought the house. Um, and um, answer your other question, I'm sorry, your other second question was uh, no, that's basically it. You you don't you didn't get a variance. You don't didn't request a variance. You don't have a variance. You don't know about a variance for your correct. Okay. All right. And then can you tell me when you noticed the construction or the deconstruction? Are you full-time resident or you No, we are part-time resident, but um

it was approximately a 14-month uh construction period beginning late summer of 2024, completing in um midsummer 2025. Okay. And did you at any point during that time period contact the uh uh county Douglas County the building inspector or building officials at any point? We did not. Okay. We assume and the reason for that is we assumed that there was a planning commission approval and b um a building permit had been pulled. I think that's a reasonable assumption and we made that particularly given the applicant was president of the National Association of Homebuilders. We would think you'd know that to have to do that. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for now. Appreciate it, Paul.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, may I first ask uh Mr. Wood, could you come back to the podium?

Yeah, please. Now you're with uh Wilson Engineers as you've indicated and you're familiar with the task that uh we have as the planning commission with respect to uh a major uh variance. Correct. Yes. And in there there are certain standards that have to be met and I believe you talked them through. One of them being uh the third that uh whatever it is we're considering has to be consistent with the public health safety and general welfare. Am I right? Yes, I agree.

Okay. U now there can be a judgment as to what that means but sometimes we are given guidance within the documents. uh and the statutes and the ordinances that tell us what that means. And do you agree with me that building codes represent standards that are consistent with public health safety and general welfare? I would agree that they apply to building occupancies and the issue in front of the planning commission for a major variance is the placement of buildings within sites,

right? But we have to be conscious, do we not, that whatever the placement is is consistent with public health, safety, and general welfare such that the most consistent definition we might have is what's in the building code. If it violates the building code, we have to have a reason why we're going to allow that. Um, yeah, and I can comment on that. I'm sorry. I don't know if there was a specific question to respond to. Do you agree with me that that if it does not comply with the building code that we must have a reason why in order to satisfy uh the public health, safety and general welfare?

Just one moment. Sure.

These sound like loaded questions, don't they? No, I think it's reasonable and I'll uh reply from the perspective of working in tandem with building safety officials for many years and that is that the building code also has some but much less flexibility than this process for exceptional uh cases when it comes to the strict technical applications. Um so as applied here I think our intent is to meet the building code to the letter and obviously with the distance from the property boundary we do have I think at least one issue in the building code with the separation from the building to the boundary. Um so yeah we acknowledge that uh apart from the building code and specific to Douglas County code in title 20 for setbacks and uh the findings for variances then I would agree that one of our best objective codes is the building code to determine public health safety and welfare. uh we have health codes, we've got a plethora of others, but within title 20 itself, um I believe that the other three findings in addition to the third finding for public health, safety, and welfare, uh both capture exceptionality and provide for a process where through conditioning um we can still achieve the same standards that the commission finds are the definition of public health. and welfare that you can do right now um without a a true standard that is uh is measurable and achievable. So um you know in setback terms from planning perspective is it a tenth of a foot? I think we might have misspoken that it

was a hundredth of a foot. It's a tenth. Um is it a foot? Is it two? Is it 10? Um, you [music] know, those are the distances that are most commonly used. I I believe in setbacks to justify there's enough setback from an adjacent structure, from property boundary to be safe, particularly in a building safety sense, a building code sense.

I appreciate your commentary, but I and you know, I'm focused on the building codes. You can tell with respect to this third uh requirement and I took that from your letter actually Wilson Engineers letter to Kate Morales O'Neal who is uh our principal planner on November 14, 2025 when Wilson says that the granting of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties etc or be detrimental to the public health safety and general welfare. So that's the key the tiein in that third element that we were just talking about and we've made that key uh tiein with the building code uh as you have just indicated. Why that's important is in your next sentence which is in response to Ms. uh Morales O'Neal, which indicates that the the current proposal does not include any penetrations such as windows or doors on the west side that necessitate a setback requirement based on the uniform building code. Do you stand by that statement in your report

uh regarding the existence of the windows? Yes, sir.

Um no, I think that's a correction item. Uh there are windows within the period since the application was submitted. Um and some further site visits, we got those photos. Um, so yeah, there are windows there and I guess the correction for the rest of that statement and related to the building code issues is that [snorts] meeting the building code is still the applicant's uh requirement as well as their intention. Um, and the existing conditions with the asbuilt structure and unpermitted portion of it um would still have to meet the building code. That's, you know,

I appreciate your cander um because you've left the commission with kind of a tautology and that means uh we don't have the variance, we don't have the permit, but we have a building. So, how can we get the permit if we don't have the variance and we already have the building? That's that's for us up here. And it's it's uh interesting, but you have provided some guidance which I appreciate very much. That statement I read was November 14, 2025 from Wilson Engineers. So the information that you've given me that there are windows on the zero lot line wall which is to the west you learned subsequent to November 14th.

Yeah, correct. And I think uh if I can make a comment that was a question from Commissioner Walder um about the timing of Wilson work. Um I I do believe it's even before the actual construction occurred. Um so at that time uh analysis that occurred from uh Keith Rubin our other planner that you know well um was prior to uh the construction of the existing addition um and then I wouldn't say we're all playing catchup but because of the nature where after the construction then we have this application a lot of that information whether it was the as built with the windows um was recent information to us too. And I would uh I would put myself in Keith's shoes saying that when the task is to prepare an application on behalf of a property owner or applicant and you prepare with the information available at the time uh and then your engagement pauses for a year or two years and you come to find out that uh where we're at with this project is the case, then you really have um you have to catch up to the work because now conditions have changed. So we do acknowledge that.

Understood. Do you did you have access to the RO Anderson set of plans with regard to this addition? Um yeah, those are internal. Um I don't know what level of review or coordination there were. They were the basis of that application. Uh sorry. um the application the previous variance application that we're were in process with but was uh was delayed um if I'm using the right terminology there.

Are you aware that there are window penetrations on that same west wall that we're talking about on the zero lot line in those plans? I'm going to take your word for it right now because I'm not You didn't know? I didn't know that before you just mentioned it. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. May I uh ask a question of Mr. Trainer? Yes.

Thank you, ma'am. Madam Chair has allowed me to ask you a question. I just want to test whether I was in the right place because I have been known to show up where I shouldn't be sometimes. I went to this project which I disclosed to my uh my colleagues on the commission and uh and I looked at that wall that is of concern on the second story on top of the garage. Am I correct that there are about five windows on that second story? Yes. Okay. So I was in the right place. You were you were in the right place looking in the right direction

and one is larger than the other four. Um, I don't know that. Okay. Yeah, that's all right. I'm I'm pretty satisfied now. And I appreciate your answers. Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am. Lori,

thank you. Um, Mr. Wood, do you know what set of plans was used? unapproved plans were used to do the construction because this plan set from Ro Anderson obviously also has a lot of errors on it as well. It's showing uh Eve extensions over the property line etc. So clearly this is not the plan set that was used for constructing the um addition prematurely. So, do you know what plan set was used?

Uh, yeah, thank you for your question, uh, Commissioner Lyall. I don't have a certain answer for that right now. Uh, obviously the plan set that's here was as planned or as planned to be submitted. Um, and I know that there is an asbuilt as constructed plan set and I'll apologize because I don't know if that is specifically information in the packet or information that uh we have on behalf of the applicant.

This plan set is dated um June 6, 2024. So presumably not that long before the uh demolition was initiated on the existing garage. So, it' be interesting to see how see what was actually used to construct this unit because obviously it was not this set of plans. It just makes it less and less um actually more and more concerning about the quality of the construction that was done on this unit. Um because we don't know what was used um to to initiate that construction. Um then let's see. And um maybe Mr. Trainer um or Mr. Wood, do you know how how far apart um or how how far to the west Mr. Trainer's property the garage is? What's the what's the separation between this existing garage and Mr. Trainer's garage? Uh, I'd have to defer. I don't have a accurate

Thank you, Lucille. Madam Chair, I can answer that. Okay. Thank you. Um, it's 3 feet at one point and like 3.5 down because it's pie shaped. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, it's about 3 ft. About 3 ft. Um, Mr. Trainer, can I ask you a question also? Um, we don't really have and I I apologize. I could have looked at Google Earth, but I don't really have a good sense of your that side of your property. Um there's a garage and then I I see that there's a unit or your your house goes farther back and um you have a rear yard or a deck or anything back there in your rear yard. We have a deck that's off the uh living room, not on it doesn't abide.

Okay. Cuz I'm just trying to figure out what what um these windows are overlooking on your property on the addition. Oh, I see your question. Um, no. They don't look down. They don't look at a living space. Okay. They look over the roof line and the the top of the garage. You can see the garage sloping up, right? Okay. All right. Thank you. Sure, Dan.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I've got a few questions to our esteemed senior planner, Lucille. Is it normal that we would not have uh records of uh variances andor building permits from the late 70s?

Our records are spotty. For the record, Lucio Railo Community Development. Um some of our some of our records we have, some of them we do not. Um I did search for the building permit from 1979. We did not have that. Um, if we did have anything, it may be a site plan. That's all that they used to keep. And only in recent years are they keeping the entire permit.

Okay. Is it normal in that in Glenbrook or certainly in that subdivision of Glennbrook that there are zero lot line uh developments? [clears throat] I I thought I had read that typically our code and is consistent with TRPA code and it's a seven foot sideyard setback typically. Is that correct?

In generally speaking, it is a 7 foot sideyard setback. There also within Glenbrook there are building envelopes which means you can build right out to the to the edge of your envelope. Um, of course you still have to have distance between for, you know, fire safety and and building code, but um, and as far as someone building up against a property line, I in Glenbrook, um, I'm not aware. I mean, I'm sure there are. I just personally have not come across. Okay. And and it appears that that the deck um in the back is also built right to the property line. So there's a zero setback for the the patio deck. So

maybe I I did not I was just looking at the site plan and I saw the deck went all the way to the the lot line. Do we know if uh 237 engine house circle got a variance since their garage is a lot closer than 7 ft? That's a very good question. And I did research that one as well and could came up blank as well as far trying to find out why 10 years later their house which came second was allowed to be built so close to the existing home. So that that yeah I could not find that permit either.

Okay. Okay. I I think that's my Well, let me ask you one more question. Um, is it normal that we would consider it a exceptional difficulty? I mean, in in my experience with these kinds of things, a lot of this exceptional difficulty stuff gets applied to the first construction. you know, you're trying to you got a weird shaped lot or whatever and you're trying to wedge something in there to get a building unit on that property. I my experience is I have not run into it with additions. I mean, it is the it is the property owner, you know, they have they have full use beneficial use of the property and the grounds. So, I'm having a hard time with your your your your findings on the first one as to what is the, you know, extraordinary hardship for a beautiful house that already exists on a beautiful lot. You know what I mean?

You make a good point. Um, the garage was existing. So, um, it it just we all we go with the shape of lot, which I know Lori says it's not always a good example. Um, and that's really what we relied on. Okay. Thank you, Chair Jim. I think most of my questions have been answered. I don't want to be redundant. Um, on the second floor above the garage, was there ever talk that their setback would apply to that that wouldn't be built all the way to the same line as the garage? I'm sorry. Can can you repeat that?

Um, on the second story above the garage, was there any talk that that needed to be set back? In the 2004 application, it was recommended that the second story be set back three feet. It was recommended by staff and the planning commission agreed to put that in as a condition and I think as a result that's why it was never built.

Okay. Uh I had a feeling um if this was somebody building something on their own but didn't know the rules but that's not the case here. These were all professionals. Had engineers, they had architects, had contractor. And um when I added to my house, I had all those things. Nobody ever once let me consider doing something without a permit. Mind your comments. We haven't opened public comment yet. Okay. Okay. Well, then I answered I I asked my one question. I thought that I had seen that in previous plans. Thank you, Dan.

One quick question, please. Chair. Thank you. If a setback variance was issued in 1979 for the garage, would we be here today? For the record, Lucille Reo, yes, we would be because the garage is it's legal non-conforming, which I've included that code section in the staff report. Um, it has to meet today's code. Even though if they did receive a variance back in 79, it still [music] that wouldn't matter. It wouldn't apply to today. They would have to meet today's code. So, we would be here today. We would be here today anyway. Correct. Thank you.

There are no more comments. I would like to open public comment and ask speakers to come to the microphone. Put your name on the roster and say your name for the record.

You can have three [music] minutes. You're on the clock this time. Um, no. I think a really salient question was the one. Please say your name for the record. Oh, I'm sorry. Jack Train, sign the roster. Mr. Oh, yes. Um, Mr. McCallip just answered, which is that if the applicant had come forward at the beginning and the same conditions [music] as in 2004 were applied, there would be a 2 and a half foot setback for the upstairs edition. And I think that [music] that would totally change the whole character of what was built. And I think that's really relevant. very relevant if not the most relevant issue. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there other speakers?

Seeing no one rise, I will close public comment and restrict comment to the commission. Jim, you're on.

Um, like I started to say, this was not somebody doing something on their own that didn't know the rules. This was done purposely in my opinion to avoid the rules to simply say and I think it was stated somewhere we'll build it and then we'll deal with the u with the aftermath. So it's not as something that's never been done before somebody unaware and uh you can make some allowances for somebody who's uh personally built the thing himself and didn't know. So, I'm really shocked about this. I don't know how we can really look at this when it's already been done. So, I'm I'm highly offended about this and I don't want to set a precedence that's an ugly precedence in this county. Thank you.

Okay. I need commission members, when you state your position to clearly state the reasons why you are approving or disproving this variance. Dan, we're going in reverse order this time. Thank you, chair. Um, so you want me to state why I would vote for or against this? Is that what you're Yes. And if there's a finding Yeah. I I need you to state which finding you either um you disagree with

if you're voting no. I think like many of the members I am torn and I think James said it very clearly but I'm trying to stick to the variance issues and in my background variances are for hardships variance are variances are to allow you to get full beneficial use of a property that otherwise you're not getting beneficial use of at least that's the way I look at variances and so when you're asking me to find an an exceptional and undue hardship because it's a pieshaped lot on a culde-sac next to four other pieshaped lots in a subdivision with pies-shaped lots and we know they're all over in subdivisions uh in these days and it's just something we work with in design so I have a difficulty finding that as a hardship ship. Um, and really number three, the granular of the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice. [snorts] Now, the pictures help, but I will tell you that if my neighbor was going up 16 feet on my property line plus a roof, I I wouldn't be happy about it either. Um, and and so I can see how the neighbor feels like there's material damage or prejudice to their property. I mean, it may be the shading. It may be just the massing. It may be a number of things. These are subjective, but I can understand the [snorts] uh the concerns expressed by by the neighbor today in in their previous letters. So, I guess I'm having a hard time

with those two findings. And quite frankly, the second finding, which is uh conditions that do not generally apply to other properties in the same land use. Well, these conditions apply all over. As I said, wedge-shaped lots, TRPA, land values are high. You want to maximize building. I get it. But it's the same circumstances that apply over and over and over again. So, I'm not finding. I'm not agreeing with staff's opinion of the findings. Thank you. Thank you, Lori.

I um concur with my colleagues assessment of the situation. uh in general I really feel like the um the finding that is most difficult for me to um square would be uh finding number three that the variance will not result in material damage or prejudice to other properties in the vicinity. I it feels like this this has the potential to do that. And I I feel like if the applicant had come forward with the variance before they had built the unit that we would be having an completely other discussion about it because then we would have some assurance about the construction standard and the than the designs that were going to be applied. But we're dealing with something that's already in place. And that uh placement to me, I cannot be assured that the the the way it was constructed, the design of its construction with the the windows, the massing of the building, the um the potential for it to shade the the neighboring property. Um to me, those all have the potential to create a material damage to the adjacent property. Also, as you know, I really agree with Dan on the pie-shaped lot situation. Some of these lots are small and so I understand that um it's difficult to fit the massing that the owner desires on some of these lots. Um however, when you buy property, there's no guarantee that the massing that you desire is going to be the massing that gets approved. Um, so I feel like um that finding one also is difficult to um justify in my mind that because the the property is narrow in the front requires a second story unit to be built um on

the existing garage that's right on the um right on the lot line. So for me those two findings are very difficult to um find a approval for. Um but that's the my concerns with the um this application. And again I would I feel like there's a lot in this application that just doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel right that this owner was unaware that they had to go through a process. it doesn't feel right that there's information uh that is incorrect either in the application letter and information or on the plans that were submitted there. There's difficulty throughout this application that to me um just seems to to not be acceptable for a um discretionary application before the planning commission.

Paul Thank you, Madam Chair. After uh discussions that I had with both Mr. Wood and and Mr. Trainer, um what we really have is is uh difficult in terms of both the timing and the process. Um, I agree with staff, however, uh, on uh, most of their observations and I took the time to take a look at the 2004 development applications for the same parcel uh, with the reduced setbacks uh, expanding um, the second story and how that it was approved with conditions. I believe that the conditions that were imposed in 2004 uh were known although I have no evidence to the current applicant because it um it strains credul to indicate with all respect to Mr. Gendler uh that there was a mistaken uh understanding that you can build without a permit uh to obtain after a building or completion. That places the planning commission in a terrible position to allow something in direct contravention of both the major variance rules and the building permit such that it makes a mockery of what uh we do on a daily basis. and staff attempts to do in order to make uh the entire community uh what it is, which is is very uh impressive, as is the Glenberg area.

That said, I understand that the denial of this major variance might necessitate, I'm not saying it does, but it might necessitate the removal of the structure, which would be extremely costly and and I'm mindful that that would be a uh and most unfortunate circumstance. So I am trying to balance the potential damage to uh the community and indeed uh Glenbrook and uh to the rules and to the process that we are all uh committed to with the cost of having to comply which may be greatly uh in excess. So where I come out, which after all of that and half of you are asleep by now and I can't blame you. Um when I look at what staff was unable to find back way going way back on uh uh uh 2004 um in order to remedy and approve or or to justify what was built [music] without permits or a variance uh nonconforming according to code and I'm speaking of 20.698.030 030. We might be able to fashion a conditional uh approval of the major variance such that it would be a requirement or a condition uh that is added to the very mindful and excellent conditions that were created by staff. Two, one condition would be that uh all construction receives a building permit that it is compliance with

incompliance with the uniform building code, including no penetrations on the left side, including windows on the upper floor. uh that that would not be allowed on a zero uh lot line. And the second is uh the conditions that were enumerated by Douglas County Fire have to be sat satisfied. Granting uh the variance with those two conditions would not place for example any appellet body that might be looking at this uh in a position where they have to ignore what our rules, what our process is, why we exist while at the same time not force the applicant to destroy what obviously took a year to build or less than a year to build which would be very expensive. So I've uh in my commentary tried to explain my position where I'm leaning uh not pleased with respect to where I'm placed but on the other hand uh I see light at the end of the tunnel as uh might be uh a solution uh in addition to all of the uh conditions that uh uh were placed by staff. Thank you Madam Chair

Kirk.

Thank you Madam Chair. Uh first of all, I want to thank Lucille for the outstanding job she did in uh preparing the materials. Uh this was a a difficult project to say the least to piece together and uh I uh applaud you Lucille for your good work. Um secondly, I do like to say that uh I've been on the planning commission for eight years. I think we've dealt with probably five or six different uh variances in the Tahoe area. And as Paul knows, and I think the rest of you appreciate, uh there are very unique uh lots and very unusual variance requests that we get. Um so, uh I voted for some of them. I've voted against some of them. I try and judge every individual project on its merits. And uh I agree with uh most all of what my colleagues have said. I don't believe that finding number one can be met or finding number three. Uh I do not believe that there is exceptional narrowness of the uh the land in question. And then as far as uh uh finding three, I think Lori explained this well. I do think it uh presents a uh severe disregard for your neighbors rights and would result in material damage or prejudice. So uh I would be not in favor of uh granting this variance.

My turn. I have been very quiet through this and I believe that all the comments are very thoughtful. I want to thank the agents who have come, the neighbor and the attorney and surveyor, everyone who has come to present their arguments. I read everything in the packet a few times. My husband was laughing at me with my magnifying glass going over everything and said I was obsessing, but I wanted to make sure that however my vote came down on this project that it was fair and well educated. I did look up Mr. Neielen and I was very impressed by his credentials. He's a very wellrespected man in his field and in 2017 he was inducted into the National Housing Hall of Fame. So I looked up what was the criteria for someone to be inducted into this prestigious organization. And one of the things that the Hall of Fame selection process looks for are individuals who career whose careers are marked by upholding building codes and permitting processes. which means building without obtain which um building without obtaining required permits directly contradicts quote the promotion of builder professionalism and ethical standards end quote that the National Housing Hall of Fame explicitly lists as one of its induction criteria permit violations demonstrate a deliberate disregard for the legal and regulatory framework that protects consumers neighboring properties public safety and the integrity of the broader housing industry. And when I read that,

there was a whole different look at how I looked at this application. I had read finding three that talked about the penetration such as windows or doors on the west side that didn't necessitate a setback requirement based on the uniform building code. I did look at the dates of construction and not having the required permits and all these things were fitting into my unrest that Douglas County was and our rules and our title 20 and everything else was being disregarded and disrespected. But when I read what the National Housing Hall of Fame had to say about what it required of those individuals who were inducted, it sealed it for me that this man who was a past president of the Builders Association in Northern Nevada and past president of the Nevada Homebuilders Association. felt so little for the county that he lives in and the community development department and the rules and regulations that he supposedly knows so well that he felt that he could build such a large addition to his home. Madam Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I I think that the the the applicant's knowledge of the the requirements in Douglas County is is relevant. We haven't noticed this item for a discussion of anyone's character today. So, I do want to just

Well, I'm moving on. All right.

Discourage you from going too far. is very important that we not set a precedent and allow this type of behavior to get lost in the mixture by saying, "Okay, well, we'll grant a variance if they meet this condition and bring it back and create a loop because you can't get a permit without a variance and you can't grant a variance without a permit and this type of thing. We either meet the findings or we don't. We either grant the variance or we don't. And it's been said very well by the commissioners here that finding one and finding three are not met. And I agree. We cannot grant the variance because it [music] does not meet the findings and we cannot allow a precedent to be sent that this we're making an exception. I just am not comfortable with that and that we don't have a good timetable for when this was built and we don't have the actual plans and as Lori said it just doesn't feel right. I don't like dealing with feelings. I like dealing with fact, but there are there are holes that need to be filled and at least at this time I cannot support this application. So, do we have a motion?

Lori, you have something else to say?

Yes, thank you. Um, I have two questions. First, well, first a statement. First, I really appreciate um that staff has worked so hard on this application. the applicant has put them in an incredibly difficult position that should never have been burdened on staff to um to try to sort through this mess of information. Um so I app I applaud staff for their attempts and and the information that they provided is is is excellent. We really appreciate all that. I don't totally disagree with your assessment um of the findings but I I think that uh in that case I I disagree to a certain degree with it but I do express that you guys did a good job on this. The other question I have is for the attorney. Um we are it sounds like this variance will will not be granted and what is the process if the applicant um I I know there's appeal process but if the applicant were to come back with the the information that we need the the the plans that were used to construct the building um the information about um how they are compliant or not compliant with the building code. Um the information about when it was constructed, the the the stuff that is lacking from this application, and then also the 2004 application uh had a three-foot setback that was applied. I don't know if that's something that the applicant is willing to consider um changing this uh expansion to include that 3-foot setback. Um but there are and I realize that's a little bit difficult, but what is this what is the standard for bringing back another variance

application on this property if the applicant wanted to pursue something that was more in line with our standards? [snorts] AJ HS on the record. Douglas County DA's office. Uh if you typically I I believe there's a one-year waiting period. So if the application is denied, they can't reapply for the same project for at least a year, right? if if you wanted for them to be able to come back sooner to discuss maybe the three-foot um change or or something along those lines, then what you'd have to do today would be to make a motion for a continuence. But there would have to be, I would think, some

okay, some perception that they could change, right, things that would change your mind about how you want to vote within that time period. Otherwise the the continuence would be right a waste.

Right. Okay. Thank you for that information. I was I know that if it is denied and the appeal um is not successful then there's probably a requirement before that one year is uh up for them to begin removing that structure. So, I want to just know if there's a alternative, if they want to pursue an alternative to totally demolishing it to bring back something else. That would be um more in line at least with the 2004 one that was approved. Um before I I get to further comments because as I've exposed uh I am in agreement with staff's recommendations with uh a couple of additional conditions. I think it would be incumbent upon us, especially in view of Commissioner Ly's uh comments to ask the applicant if they would be willing to redesign in a fashion that she has articulated and come back to us because then a continuence might be uh more appropriate.

I don't know about that. I would the commission entertain that? I personally I don't see that asking for a continuence would change my mind. How does the how do the other comm commissioners feel?

I don't I my my thought my hope would be that there would be um a denial without prejudice or something that would allow them to come back more promptly than a year. But again, I don't know that um continuing it for 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, whatever um is going to result in in a plan that we are capable of approving. Um but certainly asking the applicant if that is if there is any alternative, I don't see a problem asking them. Kirk,

thank you, Madam Chair. I'm unalterably opposed to a continuence. They have appeal rights. They have legal rights. They've enjoyed the uh the building the build process and the uh I am not sure about whether they can have use of the uh uh uh addition in question now which I would be also opposed to. I know that's not uh within our jurisdiction now, but uh they've gone so far that uh I would just prefer to do the straight denial and allow them whatever legal or other appeal rights that they have

Dan agree with you Madam Chair uh with with one exception that the variance had been granted subject to conditions uh 20 years ago. I if that hadn't happened, I would be squarely in your court. I I grappled with that and I guess my option which I don't think is going to get a lot of u you know go very far here but my option along that way would be to uh ask for a a continuence subject to them resubmitting a variance that is in compliance with what was approved in 2004. Uh, that's about as far as I could go at this point. But notwithstanding, I agree with what you've said, I tend to be a little bit drawn by the precedent that the county had issued a variance approval in the past and I would honor that. Kim.

Um I'm not I'm not in favor of a continuence. I think that the u the applicant does have a process he could go through and he can apply again in a year and that time I hope that he would put something together that would be in conformity was what with what was approved before 3-foot setback as well as the fire code and everything else that's required of them and go back and do it the right way. I don't believe at this point a continuence is the right thing to do. Yes, I don't I don't believe that anybody disagrees that it's a lovely addition and that it's uh it was well thought out and that it's unfortunate this whole this whole event is unfortunate but uh I think the best and cleanest approach for us is just to vote and send it on its Okay, Kirk.

If there are no other comments, I'm prepared to make a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the planning commission disapprove major variance application DP25-0141 for Neielson separate property trust 2007 a major variance to reduce the addition the required set 7 foot setback to 0 feet and a reduction of the required eaves from 18 in to 0 in in the R058 plan area statement in the Tahoe region based on information provided to and during our public meeting and the inability to meet the required findings. Is there a second? Second.

We have a motion by Kirk, second by Jim. All those in favor? Discussion.

I disagree with the motion. And I'll be voting against it because I believe as I've articulated that there is a way out that would conditionally [music] approve the variance require compliance with the uniform building code and the obtaining of a permit uh in a more expedited fashion that would penalize the offender uh because of the various fines etc that are already articulated in the uh staff report. uh and add the two conditions that I spoke of which is uh obtaining of the building permit uh say within 30 days which would necessitate before uh the variance would be uh in effect and the second which would be uh satisfying all of the conditions that have already been articulated by our fire department Douglas County Fire Department. So I would basically vote a conditional granting. Thank you Paul. All those in favor of the motion

I I. All those opposed. So we have five eyes. Paul Bruno loading no and Bryce Klutz is absent. Let's take a 5m minute break.

Tapping my pen makes I will call this meeting of the Douglas County Planning Commission to order and open this public hearing for possible action. Discussion of ordinance 2025-1661, a zoning text amendment amending Douglas County Code title 20 by revising chapters 20.650, 20.658, 20.660, 20.662, 20.664, 20.666, and 20.668. 668 and repealing chapter 20.675 in order to implement the requirements of Assembly Bill 241 passed by the Nevada State Legislature during the 2025 legislative session by allowing mixed use and multifamily residential development in commercial zones. The applicant is Douglas County. Affected properties are those within the commercial zoning districts outside the Tahoe Basin. Kate O'Neal, Planning Department.

Thank you, Madame Chair. Kate O'Neal, uh, planning manager for Douglas County. Um, good afternoon, everyone in attendance today. I'm actually going to ask for a continuence on this item until the January planning commission meeting. Uh staff recently took the implementation of AB241 to the town boards of Genanoa, Minden um and Gardnerville and we received some some good feedback. I did provide a letter uh from the town of Gardnerville today and copies were left in the hallway uh prior to the meeting. I would still like to to give my PowerPoint presentation today to share some insights and then give some feedback. um hopefully get some feedback from the planning commission on direction forward and come back in January after staff has had the opportunity to re review and analyze all feedback. Um so madame chair if I if I may proceed with my presentation.

Okay. Would you like me to read item the next item into the record and then you could give both presentations at the same time? Yes, please, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Okay. This is um actually did I read them both? Where am I? Item number two. Item number three. Your presentation is so full. What page is this? Item three. Okay. for possible action discussion of ordinance 20-251662 a zoning map amendment changing the zoning for properties within Douglas County zone mixeduse commercial MUC in order to implement the requirements of assembly bill 241 which was passed by the Nevada state legislature during the 2025 legislative session and which requires the allowance of mixeduse or multifamily residential development in all commercial zones. The applicant is Douglas County. Affected properties are those which are within MUC zoning districts outside the Tahoe basin with Kate O'Neal Moris O'Neal planning department presenting.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, for the record, Kate O'Neal. So, Assembly Bill uh 241 uh was passed earlier this year in May and requires all jurisdictions to adopt an ordinance that authorizes by right a multifamily housing development or mixeduse development in all commercial zoning districts. So I just added this slide for reference because I wanted to share this is from our 2020 Douglas County master plan which includes the action of allowing multifamily residential zoning in commercial land use category. So although m uh m mixeduse commercial zoning was implemented into title 20 I believe in 2007, the master plan indicates that this action indicates this action and so it seems similar to the intent of AB241. So this is where staff originally landed as far as how to implement AB241 which includes this zoning tax amendment. So when you looking at AB241 the intent is we have to allow multifamily residential in all commercial zoning districts. So why do we need mixeduse commercial zoning then in our code was the thought process right? So we we don't need that zoning district anymore because the whole point to mixeduse commercial was to allow commercial and residential. Well, now it's allowed by right in those commercial zones. So let's just

eliminate mixeduse commercial zoning in title 20. And that's what this ZTA uh would include is the update to title 20 which would eliminate the mix mixed commercial zoning. Um it would allow multifamily uh development um in all commercial zoning areas. Uh in general commercial and tourist commercial staff was bringing forward that the multifamily development is allowed without a mixeduse component. Meaning, if you owned a general commercial property or a tourist commercial property, uh you would not you could do a a multifamily development and you would not need that commercial component. You could still do all commercial, but if you chose to do a multifamily development, you would not have to do the commercial component. If you were neighborhood commercial or office commercial zoning and you wanted to do a multifamily, you would still have to do that commercial component. Now, how we landed on general commercial and tourist commercial as far as the properties that would only, you know, you could only do multifamily is there's just a handful. There's not as many, especially undeveloped, and they're surrounded by neighborhood commercial. Most of them are office commercial that we have a ton of neighborhood commercial zone properties up and down 395. So, our thought process was, well, if you're going to allow multifamily, these would be good properties because you are you're going to have that commercial component around a general commercial or an office commercial. So, that's where our thought process. Yes. Yeah.

Uh tourist commercials like a casino is tourist commercial, correct? Uh yes, I think to to Yeah. Taho, we're going to look at a map. So a zoning map or um a map showing the zoning. So we'll I'll show you the different the different zoning. Thank you. Mhm. So this is where we landed originally.

Okay. As far as general commercial and tourist commercial, you can do multifamily development and you don't need a commercial component or you can still do commercial. It's I want to be clear just because this AB241 says you're allowed by right now to do multifamily, it doesn't mean you have to. You can still utilize your property as strictly commercial in all zoning districts. Is that clear? Is everyone? Okay. The second part of that was a zoning map amendment requirement because again if staff is moving forward with eliminating the mixeduse commercial, we have to address those parcels in our county that are zoned mixeduse commercial. We have to change the zoning now. So let's start with Gardnerville. So, these pink um properties are the current those are the properties that are zoned mixeduse commercial right now. So, you have down on 395 that's um there's the right past Waterlue, you know, where the Burger King and all that is. There's the gun store there. And then behind that property is that was actually a multifamily that was coming in originally. Um there's some couple cement there's cement pads already back there. Um but all of that is currently zoned mixeduse commercial. And then this other property here in the middle um that's that's uh right where Judy's Blinds is. Um if you're familiar across from um and then that other property is right at the curve. It's empty next to I think it was a realtor's place. There's an empty parcel there. So, um, that is those are the current mixeduse commercial. I'm going to move to the next slide so you can see this. So, in black, those are the ones that I just went over that are currently zone

mixeduse commercial. So staff said, "Well, it makes sense to to to zone them neighborhood commercial because if you look around, they're already surrounded by neighborhood commercial and it still requires the commercial component." That was really important when we were looking at this is we is from a county's perspective and looking at the towns and their prosperity plans and their commercial corridors, we don't want to lose that commercial aspect. So, we felt looking at the the zoning map that the neighborhood commercial made sense for these parcels. So, someone could come in with a multifamily again, but they would still have to do a commercial component. So, you wouldn't lose that. When we went to the town of Gardenerville, and that's in the letter I provided, and this was really good feedback. So, when we talk about general commercial, and I'm going to point out a property, unfortunately, that's that's not here on this map. Across from uh SP Sharkies and adjacent to Overland, there's that that empty lot, and that's that's general commercial. I'm just using this as an example. It was really important for the town of Garderville to to talk about their plan and their commercial corridor and their their hesitance was now if we allow someone with general commercial empty lot they're just going to put in multifamily and we've lost that commercial component in our commercial corridor and what I think would be so now again although the towns are advisory it's important to to heed what they're saying and and especially after they've developed the the town plans. So, you know, that the ideal situation is someone coming in, this is from a

planning perspective, that property or another similar property where they come in and it's mixed use. It's, you know, residential on the bottom and or commercial on the bottom and and housing up top. um which is more of that old oldtown feel and more of what we're we're used to um versus large, you know, apartment complex. However, we have to remember the intent of AB241, right? It was to to require and to provide more attainable housing. That can be a struggle because this isn't Las Vegas and this is we're talking a much smaller town, a much smaller scale. I think the intent of AB241 was to address where you have a large box stores that are now abandoned. What do we do with these properties? Well, let's reszone them and allow multifamily in these buildings. Again, just by reviewing the hearings, I I believe that was the intent. Broadscale statewide makes it difficult from a planning aspect to try to make what you're wanting to do here fit in our littleer towns from a planning perspective. So, I really heard, you know, what from a staff level and listening to the town of Gardnerville, town of Minden, town of Genanoa, um that possibly the better solution is to still require commercial in all zoning districts, meaning even if it's general commercial or tourist commercial to address these ones right on 95, like right in the commercial care corridor to where you can still do multifamily. Great spot for it, but you don't want to lose that commercial from a town's perspective and

what their plan are in their corridors. I've heard from other owners who they have adjacent properties and one's neighborhood commercial and the other one's mixed use. Would rather have a multifamily zone property and a neighborhood commercial. But again, looking at the plans of the town, that's that commercial corridor. So, how do we maintain the commercial aspect for these properties? So, and it this is just Gardenerville. Here's Minden. We can move on and do the same exercise. Uh over here to the far left, that's you know where the movie theater is. Um and the uh housing complex there. Um up here on the top right um this is the one I just referred to next to neighborhood commercial. Uh one of the things I want to point out is if you can I don't have a pointer but if you can look up here where what do

use this and then there is another way to put a pointer on there. I just not

Oh. Okay. Pointer right here. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So see this little right in here. See this little sliver of pink? So, this is a multi-family residential parcel already zoned that way, but we have and it's it happens within the county. We have these inconsistencies where this property line has a little bit of of mixeduse commercial in it. And same with down here. See this public this is public facility property right here and it bleeds into this mixeduse. So within this zoning map amendment, we also are cleaning that up. I mean, we're what we're saying is and and suggesting is this property that's 99% MFR, we're going to make the entire thing. So we're going to change this little sliver so we don't have split zoning and make this entire parcel MFR. And this is the town of Mindenowns here. This is all public facilities. The same for here. So this entire parcel would be public facilities. And how does this happen? when sometimes when boundary line adjustments are done and you're using meets and bounds and then property lines are done and they don't mix up and you end up with with these type of you know inaccuracies. I just wanted to point that out. Um this here is the mind village um off Lucern again all these uh offices here and then residential. So again, when we go to the following map, here's the ones with, you know, in the black. Those are the ones that just showed. And you can see we changed everything to neighborhood commercial. Again, what made sense was neighborhood commercial is nearly identical to mixeduse commercial. So we don't want to lose the commercial as aspect. So let's just make everything, you know, these which is already neighbored by neighborhood commercial. So, it seemed to make a lot of sense until we got some of the

feedback. So, and this is Tahoe, which is a beast of its own. So, this is an interesting parcel, and we see this a lot in Tahoe. Um, how these things happened. I mean, this is beyond just a boundary line adjustment, but this is actually one whole parcel that is literally has three different zonings and it's a parking lot. And there's also some already some multif family here. But you see the large parking lot. If I go to the next slide. So this is the only port p part of the parcel that is mixeduse commercial. Um this is MFR and this is general commercial. Um which makes sense parking lot. Um but this is parking lot over here. In any case to address this again mixeduse commercial is so similar to neighborhood commercial. it made sense to again not you know just to to be consistent um zone it the same as the nearly the same as mixed use commercial. So here is the quandry now and and this is something that was discussed um by staff when we when this was first brought to us and um we were having the discussion is although mixeduse commercial and neighborhood commercial are nearly identical there are some uses that are not identical. So, I'll give you an example. Within mixeduse commercial, a large group care or group home is allowed with a special use permit. It's not allowed in neighborhood commercial. A independent congregate se senior living community is allowed in neighborhood commercial. It is not allowed in mixeduse commercial. A gun indoor gun range is allowed in

neighborhood commercial. It is not allowed in mixeduse commercial. So let's go back to the mind village or the I'm sorry Ironwood where the movie theater is or so there's a there's a residential you know complex right there. So if LabCore happened to go out of business that adjacent that could with with its zone neighborhood commercial instead of mixed use they could now put an indoor gun range in there. So that's the quandry now in in thinking this through is and m and maybe maybe that these are incidental and there's too few because if you look at the table it's really 95% it's exact but there are those few exceptions where the uses are not the same. So originally it made sense let's get m rid of mixed use but after you know and let's just do commercial in two of the zoning districts not all commercial zoning districts. Um but it's a quandry. It's a difficult one because you you don't want to take away um you know any type of use that was originally there that now wouldn't be there by changing neighborhood commercial. So moving forward there there's options. Do we do we keep mixeduse commercial in the code? We just leave it there and we don't need a zoning map amendment and the zoning text amendment would be modified to just add multifamily in all commercial districts and leave it at that or how staff has brought it forward. [music] So, that's why I asked for a continuence because I I feel like there's more um to look at and to

research and I want feedback from the planning commission. Um, I know we'll hear public comment also, but I think it to do for for staff and myself to feel like we've really given the due diligence that we have this time and I bring it back in January after some feedback and and comments from from the planning commission. Other questions? Yeah. Why not just take the easy road and keep your mixeduse commercial? Is there an advantage to getting rid of it other than just simplicity?

Well, the intent of getting rid of it to begin with was we don't need it anymore. you know that that's why it just made sense and it made cleaner for code like we don't really need that zoning district anymore cuz the only reason we had it is so that you could do residential and commercial on the same property. Now with AB241 we don't need it. The the only disconnect now are those those those uses that again most of it is identical but there are those few exceptions. Why not just move those uses into the new code language and then just that way you don't have to lose sleep over missing out a couple of uses.

Well, because it goes both ways. There's some that are allowed here, not allowed here, and allowed here. And you and remember we can't really affect all the so if let's say for example we said you know what we're not going to allow indoor gun ranges in neighborhood commercial anymore because it's it's an allowed use in neighborhood commercial not in mixed use. So if we got rid of mixed use we're going to say oh never mind we're going to allow indoor gun ranges now in mixeduse commercial. keep it in our code and that might not go because that wasn't the intent of these parcels, right? So that's that's where it can get challenging and we can't just spot zone like okay the use is allowed only on this parcel. So that's why it's challenging. So Kate on those um those orphan uses where what other zones are they allowed in? is are indoor gun ranges allowed in any other zone or is that the only zone that they are permissible? And also I'm actually curious about the gun ranges, but I'm a lot more concerned about the group homes and congregate housing and make sure that there's allowances for them in the community and I will I will provide this li you know again this is kind of all coming to fruition now like you know as I I I literally started going one by one. So an in to to address your your question about the indoor gun range uh commissioner Lyle. So uh a special use permit is required in private recreation, neighborhood commercial and general commercial and tourist commercial. So right now the only commercial district it's not allowed in is office commercial. And it's not allowed in mixed use.

What about group homes in congregate care? Uh let me get back to that one. Okay. So for um the independent congregate senior living community. So right now it's allowed in neighborhood commercial, office commercial, general commercial um and it's not allowed in mixed use and it's not allowed in tourist commercial. Jim.

Um, it seems like the more things you run across, you're always going to find something that doesn't fit. This could go on forever. Um, you know, when you first started, I thought neighborhood commercial seems to solve everything, but apparently it doesn't. Um and in what you came across, did you find in most cases neighborhood commercial was the best way to go? And there's just a few cases where need to make a change. And what what were the um well answer that one then I have one more followup? Well, I think initially where we landed with neighborhood commercial and office commercial requiring the commercial component, we felt pretty comfortable again because we thought general commercial and tourist commercial, there's just not as many properties compared to neighborhood commercial.

Mhm. And those properties seem to be s, you know, for the majority surrounded by a neighborhood commercial where you're going to have to have a commercial property or there's already existing commercial properties around you. So that's where we landed in initially because we didn't want to get rid of that commercial component for sure. And then after going to the meeting starting with town town of Garderville, I you know I I thought they made a good point as far as you know their their town plan and their corridor and what they'd like to see on these vacant general commercial properties. You know, there's one property from what I understand there was an interest of putting a hotel. Well, if this changes, that could change the the the intent or of use to well, maybe a multifamily development is would better serve me as a developer. You know, I don't know the answer to that question, but that was their concern is they don't want to get rid of, you know, lose that commercial component. Now, on the other hand, you have general commercial down by Walmart, which would be a great place for apartments, right? I mean, but that's outside, you know, when you get outside the town boundaries, it's there it's not as uh it's not as much of an emphasis um as because there's as far as plan for prosperities for town of Gardennerville, town of you know, their town boundaries. So, um but again, you can't pick and choose like, okay, this property you can do just multifamily. So, it's trying to find that fine line and after hearing feedback and and talking to, you know, some hearing some public comment and, you know, it's I think it's it's a good reason for pause um to come back in January and and get feedback from the

planning commission. All right, I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

This was okay. This was originally noticed as a public hearing. So, I'd like to open public comment because some people may be here to speak. Please come to the microphone and put your name down on the roster. Thank you, Madam Chair. Eric Nilson, uh, Gardnerville Town Manager. For the record, I appreciate the discussion Kate started. Um, so I won't probably take my full three minutes. I did provide a letter summarizing the um, uh, the position of the town board, which was taken at the meeting last Tuesday. It didn't have time to make it into the packet. I was hoping it would make it in supplemental, but it didn't. But now that we have a month, you'll have plenty of time to review it. Again, to reiterate, the main concern for the town is general commercial, not requiring a commercial component. Uh the town through its corridor from High School Street, you know, uh from the middle school south to the S-curve is all general commercial. And if that was redeveloped without a commercial component, you could have straight apartments all along Main Street. Uh the plan for prosperity, which is the master plan for the town um for 20 years, states that the goal is to develop new commercial projects and renovate existing buildings as an extension of downtown's historic storefront shopping environment. To lose a quarter of our main street that could potentially just be apartments, uh Gardennerville loses its complete feel and its complete um uh um vision. Um we the town board also recognized they don't discourage uh mixed use commercial. They don't they don't discourage discourage um residential components along Main Street. They've always wanted mixeduse commercial. They always want the

insurance offices, the accountants on the on a base floor with residential on the top apartments. That's fine. We just don't want it strictly multifamily. And Kate, I'll just correct one thing she said down by Walmart that is still in the town boundaries. Um but but we do agree that uh you know that is general commercial also but could a row of multif family or apartments in that area that's more appropriate. So yeah you are kind of caught between two. You can't have general commercial one and general commercial too. So the town board uh asked and requested that just all commercially owned properties have a commercial component to them. Um the one thing I will say tourist commercial there's two there's two properties in the town that are zon tourist commercial. Sharkies and then Oxabe mobile home park which is currently residential. If if uh tourist commercial wasn't required to have a commercial component that wouldn't affect the town that much. Um but I appreciate it. I'll be back in January if the if the planning commission does indeed um uh continue this and I appreciate Kate uh for bringing this up and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Eric. Good afternoon. Um, Alan Rapton, I'm here on behalf of Excuse me, sir. Please state your name for the record and sign roster.

Alan Rapkin here on behalf of 344 Quaky Aspen Association, which is a subassociation up in the Tahoe Village development. We of course are almost 100% outside of the TRPA area. We're technically in the basin, Tahoe basin, but we're really outside of the general regulations of the basin. Our concern is for AB241 which we've been following as well as its integration into title 20 is uh rumors and talk about further development of the stage coach area into a commercial multiuse area. the [music] effect and the taxing of our loop system with quaking and aspen and uh tramway what impact uh AB241 would have on a US forest service permit dealing with Heavenly. So all these questions remain. Uh we of course have finally gotten off the ground the the uh the Tremway project that had been delayed for so many years, but it's going to come online soon with 40 additional uh condominium units. Quaking Aspen and Tramway are very overtaxed right now. A lot of the burdens are falling on the HOA as opposed to KGID in the county. And uh there's just general concern as to the impact of a mixeduse development that could ever come into uh Tahoe Village. And this is not pie in the sky things. Back about 30 years ago, your records will show. I I appeared to also question the American ski proposal to further develop the stage coach area also as a multi-use part residential part commercial development. Fortunately

for Tahoe Village that proposal was shelved because of the sale by American ski to ultimately veil. Um but we do know that Vale has plans to further develop. We don't know what impact those plans would have on title 20 here in the county, but we are concerned. Um, and we do have an overt taxing problem, especially as to parking, etc. And I did put that into my comment letter. Um, it's pretty widely known that we're pretty heavily concentrated because of the vacation home rental situation up on the hill. It seems like the concentration of VH VHRs up on the hill is causing problems for regular family and second home development up on the hill. Anyway, thank you. I I did provide a comment letter. It pretty well sets out the position of my sub association. I don't know if the master association, Taho Village HOA has provided comment, but I know they're also interested in learning more about what's going on. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. And we did receive your comments. Is there anyone else? Seeing no one rise, have a closed public comment. And Kate, yeah, just um in re in response to the the last public comment. Um again, this is not bringing forward any type of development. And currently that property off of uh Quaking that you know, I showed the multiple three zones. it it is right now zone multi-use commercial. So it's if someone wanted to come in today, they could do that with that property without even AB241 being um in existence. So it it changing it it we wouldn't uh in order to change it to let's say I mean I I don't know what the intent would be single family residential let's say you that would require a master plan amendment. So again, this bill only allows us to affect the um commercial properties. So again, it made the most sense to change the zoning to neighborhood commercial. Um but again, if we did move forward and keep multi-use commercial, that that property would remain as is.

[clears throat] Yeah, we'll need a motion to continue this item to January 14th. Kate, I'm sorry. I I would just like some just some thoughts if I could and some feedback from any type of direction or how you're you know the thoughts as far as requiring residential and and any any feedback or anything you might be able to give or as far as that goes.

The only feedback I have is I concur with Eric Nielson having attended both the town of Minden and the town of Gardnerville meetings. Their big concerns were to incorporate the vision plans and I think that's an excellent idea and that's something that you touched on. I think that we're being sensitive to what the needs are for Douglas County as well as keeping mindful of what the state wants. and nobody is happy that the state is taking away local control. Thank you, Madam Chair. the uh significance of your comment that the potential um that uh for this particular assembly bill to pass as a law was inconsistent with what I envision Genanoa Minden and Gardnerville would benefit from and that's a difficult proposition because having commercial on the first floor with uh one or two apartments above is consistent with what you see in most western towns that were conceived or started to be built before a certain time. Uh my best example is is where I participated in the planning commission in the town of Los Gatos and they maintained the commercial on the first floor if not a restaurant, a small uh retail or whatever type of business it was commercial business with apartments

above in a u architecturally pleasing uh circumstance that allowed for walking uh in front of these types of developments with parking in the back. And and that really um would be conducive, at least in my opinion, with all due respect to our um town manager that's here, uh to the type of uh communities that I envision or I saw 37 years ago when I first started coming up. and uh and I'd hate to lose that by having block uh multif family dwellings. I realize that that's a noble cause because there is not enough affordable housing, but I don't think this is the way to affect it within the town. you know, it it uh there's my I would probably go against the the uh the state in this and and I doubt seriously if I'd be a state representative with that kind of view, but uh so would it be. Thank you. I think this is a complete overreach by the state. Um doesn't surprise me. My understanding is this bill originated with concerns of Las Vegas and in several situations they had strip malls that were zone commercial that were dying and they needed to get a residential. So I understand it. I think in that case in that place this is probably pretty reasonable here. And I'm thinking about Winnamaka Elely and all the rurals. This is ridiculous. Unfortunately, we have to deal with it. And I don't know how you're going to find that perfect um

that perfect composite to get everything we want and have housing. Uh if the state had worked harder to to lobby the federal government for that housing bill, we'd have land and we could have housing and we could still develop our commercial corridors. But uh nobody elected me governor or president or anything. So, till that happens, um, um, I think you're doing the best you can do and I appreciate that you're delaying this to get more input and, uh, the best I can tell you is good luck. I think it's going to be hard to make everyone happy, but uh, like I said, good luck.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If uh, everybody's prepared, I'll make a motion to Lori. Sorry to um be so late here. Kate, I have a couple questions. Um the requirement for a commercial component I think is a good thing and I would support it in all the zones, but let's talk about what that means. I don't see anything in the code right now that says a commercial component is um a certain percentage of the square footage or um a minimum square footage. I mean, somebody could come in and say, "Well, I have a vending machine over here." That's a commercial component. So, um, I think there needs to be an express amount of commercial commercial component that is and maybe that varies for the different zones. So, maybe in a general commercial zone that commercial component is 10% or 15%. And in a neighborhood commercial zone, maybe it's 30% or the whatever constitutes the ground floor or something of that nature. So I think if we spend some time kind of digging in a little bit to those details, it might satisfy some of the needs of the towns and our obligation as sad as it is to comply with the regulation that isn't really doesn't fit us really well. So um I'm a big proponent of kind of trying to find where those middle grounds would lie in the different zone categories. So that would be my suggestion to maybe um do a little more um code modification between the neighborhood commercial, general commercial, tourist commercial, anything like that. I don't think tourist commercial is a going to be a big um problem. I don't know that we would need a commercial or just to designate that in tourist commercial, but I think between neighborhood commercial and general commercial, we

should have a little more um distinction between the two about what a commercial component is. So, thank thank you for your comment um Commissioner Lyall. So, currently mixeduse commercial does require those development standards. So it's based on your floor area ratio. The least amount you can have for the commercial component is 25%. So we didn't plan on changing that development standard would still have to be met in all the commercial zones with the multifamily. So you would still the minimum you would need on that on a mixeduse property um in commercial zoning districts would be the the least you could do is 25%. Do you think that um satisfies the con some of the concerns of um town of Garderville? Maybe we should up it to a little higher percentage of um commercial commercial component in the general commercial zones.

Um I think I I it might depend on how we move forward. If we eliminate mixeduse commercial um again that just keeping in mind the uses so that would eliminate you know that that conflict would still be there. Um it would be challenging because we'd have mixeduse commercial and we have development standards already for percentages. I'm not sure how that might be confusing than to say but in general commercial it may need to be different because multi-m mixeduse commercial is just that commercial and residential but I I can look into how we may proceed and and update the mixeduse commercial section of code but um but I appreciate the comment we can look into that

Dan

just real quick it's ironic that we're all saying we we don't like the state to step in on our land use. U but having said that, I think it's particularly important that you're doing what you're doing. We like local control and I think your efforts to talk to the townships are spoton. That's what we have to do. And I'm going to be inclined to lean towards what the township's input as long as it's not grossly, you know, wrong or something like that or or out of step with with what you can do or we can do as a county. So my my direction would be keep, you know, keep the the communications open with the townships and let's uh let's, you know, listen to what they have to say. There are eyes and ears in each each area. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I would like to move that the uh items two and three on uh the agenda, discussion of ordinance 20251661 a zon and text amendment and discussion of ordinance 2025 1622 be moved continued to the January 13, 2026 uh you got Tuesday the 13th Tuesday the 13th. January 13, 2026 to be held at the historic courthouse in mind. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion by Kirk, second by Jim. All those in favor? I I

motion passes unanimously and Bryce is absent. Madam Chair, I do have some closing comments if I may.

Sure. Uh I wanted to close the uh meeting uh by thanking uh the many people and organizations that have assisted with the activities of the planning commission in the past year. First and foremost, we owe a deep debt of gratitude and appreciation for your outstanding leadership. Chair Casey, you have a strong dedication to your position, run excellent meetings, and devote considerable time before and after our meetings to stay informed. You attend board of commissioners and town board meetings and go above and beyond to be knowledgeable about the needs of Douglas County. Thank you, Moren. I extend my thanks also and the good efforts of of Vice Chair Bryce Klutz and all of my fellow planning commissioners. Each of you provide a valuable service to the planning commission. We're well served by everyone in the community development department. Tom, Andrea, Kate, Lucille, Linda, and Colleen do tremendous work which would be lost without. Thank you and your support staff in mind and at Stateline. We also receive important support assistance from the county engineer Jeremy Hutchings and his team as well as VHR program manager Erdie Stalo and his staff. Our clerk treasurer Amy Bergens has an outstanding group of workers that are support our meetings both before, during, and after our meetings. Thank you to Nikki, Amber, Michelle, Tanya, and the entire clerk staff for their excellent work. SOSU TV does a great job broadcasting our meetings. They work behind the scenes, and we appreciate uh their work. Uh Douglas County is also fortunate to have the superb leadership of County Manager Jennifer Davidson and the efforts of her team. Finally, we should thank Kirk Hildebrand and the Record Courier for the role that they play in keeping our community informed of the actions of county government. Our nation is fortunate to have a free and independent press. Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. May everyone have a wonderful holiday season. Thank you.

You're here. Thank you, Kirk. I would like to open public comment. If there is anyone wishing to speak, please come to the microphone, put your name on the roster, and say your name for the record. Seeing no one rise, I will close closing public comment. And I'd like to make an announcement. The first public workshop and presentation for Title 20 Consolidated Development Code update is taking place on Tuesday, December 16th from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. at the CVIC Hall. The title is essentially a rule book for all building, land use, and development within the county, and it combines all regulations regarding zoning, subdivisions, and construction into a single legal title. Staff has been working diligently on revisions for the past three years, and 2026 is the year we finally get to see the results of that monumental effort. So, I would like to echo the sentiments of Michael Padre, Kirk Walder, and thank you all for a wonderful year. Thank you to the public. Thank you to the town managers, and thank you to each and every one of you. AJ, you're the best. Merry Christmas to all. I will adjourn this meeting.