Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The normal chair is out of town. So as the vice chair, I'm taking over the role for this evening. I think I need to have a roll call of call to order and then a roll call. That's correct. Oh, I'll make the call. OK. So Commissioner Roche, here. Commissioner Havel, here. Commissioner Grinke, here. And Commissioner Tiernan's here. Excellent. We have quorum. So I need a motion to approve our final agenda. So moved. Second. Second. Go ahead. Okay, and I'll make a roll call. In favor, Commissioner Roach? Aye. Commissioner Ebel? Aye. Commissioner Grinke? Aye. And Tiernan's an aye. At t

At this stage, there's no unfinished or other business, but before us are some amendments for the public hearing tonight. Consideration of amendments to the chapter 19 zoning ordinance of our municipal code. Land use categories, implementing programs, and the six cycle housing element. The staff for this is. The floor is yours.

I appreciate that. Thank you. So let me first quiz the commission to see if they have questions of staff before we move on. So do we have any questions regarding the text or this transfer of development rights? I have a couple questions.

Fire away. So first, just as the procedural posture, am I correct in understanding that a lot of the changes that were already that we're being asked to consider have already been adopted by council as part of the general plan that we're just being asked to codify?

So we're primarily focused on the two items that you flagged for us as things that you want our particular feedback and the rest is all kind of more or less what the council has directed staff to do.

Perfect. And now, kind of changing gears to the TDR proposal, I just want to clarify, just for my own sake, that you mentioned that the TDR would not then be subject to the density bonus. So am I correct in assuming that they're both being applied to the base rate as opposed to like, so if we start out with 100 units and they had a 20% density bonus, and then a 25% TDR bonus, they would get 155 units as opposed to 25% of the base rate. you know, 120 and get a higher number or 145 units as opposed to 150. So I can't do math at this late hour.

Perfect. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I had it correct. And then finally, moving to the review threshold, does it differentiate at all the 150 units between, say, a brownfield infill development versus a sprawling subdivision or anything like that? It's just the total units?

OK. I guess that's something we have Sacramento to thank for then. My thinking is just that I would hate for there to be a scenario where we have a Nevada prides itself on our open space. I would hate for there to be a subdivision that comes down the line that is going to bulldoze a huge tract of land that we couldn't have an input on. But it sounds like Sacramento is once again tying our hands on whether we protect that space. Just trying to think if there's any wiggle room that there could be for us to potentially have an input on greenfield sites within the time frame that Sacramento had se

So a couple of questions. I had the specific about 150 and above and 150 below what you were talking about there, so thank you. I also wanted to clarify on the TDR item 3, and this is not subject to the city's affordable housing requirement and that that is an incentivizer. It's an incentivizer because why?

And that the number was 20? 20% yeah But relative to the larger unit of how many but when does that threshold get crossed for the 20%?

And as you mentioned, these are already basically in play. We're simply trying to codify these amendments into the general plan.

With that said, could we go back on the TDR and take a look at item three? I could just use some clarity on that, please, if you don't mind, on the screen, if at all possible. It was item one, actually. Item 1 and 3, I had questions on, but item 1 would be great. Thank you.

I think that might be. Yes, let's take a look. So there it is. OK, receiving site units not subject to the city affordable housing. That's item three. Item one, receiving property can obtain units up to 25% above receiving site maximum density per general requirements land use designation. I look at that sentence. It's a little bit of a word salad to me to understand what the intent of that sentence means.

I think that would be a situation where a developer

What we're talking about here is limited to a very specific area of the city, not the entire area of the city itself, but two areas that were mapped out earlier.

And does this help, with the information here, does this help streamline

So we'll stick on the TDR for a little while. I think the advantage is that they don't have to be affordable units, the units on the receiving end. So if they prefer to have market rate housing rather than provide the affordable, that in their perception would be a red ink, they get to have market rate. But what I see is that it's such a narrow area for receiving. It's just exclusively downtown. It goes up to Atherton, stops there. That would be the North Redwood corridor picking up that triangle, and then down Grant Avenue. What's a challenge for me is trying to actually, without a concrete e

Okay. So would it be possible for that same property owner who, their property is zoned, it's hillside, it's zoned for 30, though, to say, well, I'm going to sell 15 to project A, but then we're going to sell, split off the other 15 and sell them to project B. Is that a likely scenario as well?

Do we have anybody waiting in the lurches that's ready to jump on a transferred property?

So that kind of brings to mind, so because we have the county line fairly close in many parts of this town, could some development rights from the county be transferred into the city?

OK, so I do have a couple of questions about the text. And my PC is not operating. So I have the pages that showed up in our staff report. I have some questions. Sure. So page six. It has under building standards something about the max density doesn't apply for open space. I'm just curious, why would even, it's open space, what density do we need there?

So it was on page six, as part of the text changes, table two, three, under AG, where it shows open space, It has something about building standards in my notes here. And I don't get why we need building standards in open space. Unless it's like maybe a shed.

I'm assuming it's just for a shed or for maintenance stuff, but if you could clarify.

Okay, I mean, that's what I'm assuming, but I just want to verify that that is indeed the case. Yeah. Okay, so then on page 19, The residential unit uses CN for multifamily. As I recall, or as I, I don't have the grid in front of me, but it was something about how it needed a permit. So again, page 19. Residential land uses CN. Yes. multifamily, it says that it needs a permit.

okay so so previously it was a it was a permitted use now it requires a permit somebody's got to actually apply for it it's actually the other way so previously a use permit was required now a use permit is no longer automatic okay that's that's fine um page 16. um the abbreviations you and i'm curious which one is Old Town versus New Town. You know, we've got a CDR and then we've got a CDB. And I'm assuming the business district is the West End. New Town, if you will. Yes. Okay. Okay.

It would be nice, actually, in brackets if it said Old Town. Right. To make it a little bit clearer. Do we... So... Page 21, this is about the check cashing. So that was the question why it was. I think it's a permitted in the West End, in Newtown, but not in Oldtown. Is that accurate? Or did the city council take action on that? Because we had a little controversy about a business.

Okay, so let me try that one more time. So Old Town, check cashing is now, as long as it's within a grocery store or some other service, is a permitted use. Yes. Okay, it doesn't require a huge permit.

Okay. Thank you. And then lastly, so there's a table for And it's regarding design review. And I'm just curious, did they have a chance to review that? Have they had that committee?

balance of it that's so so assuming we make a recommendation to just go straight to the city council exactly okay okay um that's the extent of my questions at least for now around the text and the tdrs um does staff want to contribute anything else before i open the hearing Okay, so I'm gonna open up a public hearing in case members of the public wanna talk to us about these text changes or the transfer of development rights. It is kind of esoteric a little bit. I'd be curious from staff's perspective how much more work this may well develop being that now you'll be handling projects with 150

We share some of your questions. Do you want her to clarify the question, or can you give her some? I know you explained already, but. We know you have the back and forth, but that's fine. Let's see if they can try and address that for you, Celia.

Proof will be in the pudding if we ever see one of these projects. Anyway. Thank you. Thank you.

Did that help much? Because I thought your example was pretty decent, so let's just assume you own five acres, there's a creek running through it, essentially you should be entitled to 25 units, depending on the density, up to 50 on five acres. With the creek running through it, you couldn't probably build much of anything, but now you can sell what otherwise you could have developed to somebody downtown. Now, you used Dr. Insomniac as the example. So that would be your receiver that they can donate to?

OK. Because of that caveat? Yeah. OK. Uh-oh.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I think you asked great questions. Okay, so anybody else from the public want to speak to us? Otherwise, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back. Okay, back to the commission. You've heard a little bit of discussion, further questions. Are we prepared for some actions? Commissioner Rook.

So what I'm wondering here is, I'm looking at the map. It's a small area. And are we thinking, if we want to get this into the general plan and clean up the amendments a little bit, is this kind of being used, what I'm thinking, as a template for something further down the road? Or is this simply to this very small area is kind of where my head's at right now. That's what I'm wondering because there's a whole lot of stuff and stuff that needs to be brought in to the general plan, I get that. But it's only specific to this area that we're talking about right now.

Yeah, I think what this ultimately means will be, you know, trades and some of their rights and we see the locations and the criteria are established I mean one of the things that I have felt comfortable with is trying to identify development infill closer to our services and that's precisely what this would be doing would be bringing if there are units available that are on the perimeter of town but can't be developed you know closer restaurants and services.

What I'm getting out of this, where my mind went, was air rights in Manhattan on a microcosm. But it's kind of the same concept.

I think that you're onto something there. It is very conceptual. But if you have questions, just ask the other evening.

That is it for me. I just wanted to get your feedback on that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I'm supported, but I'm hesitant about the process until I actually see the realities of it come around.

Yeah, I think that the streamlining aspect is pretty apparent, trying to combine stuff and make it less to go through the process and find what can you use in which districts and what have you. So I believe that that will be accomplished with this vote. But the TDR thing is new turf. I'll support it.

Okay, any discussion on the motion before us? Okay, I'll start with Commissioner Greenkey.

Well, I just wanted to, on the point of, just before we vote, I did also just want to discuss what role design review would play in the review, going back to the review process, the role design review would play. When it sounds like, given the time constraints, they would not have time to review the fewer than 150 units, but would if it were above 150, am I correct?

It would not go to the design review commission beforehand. So once we adopt this, designer view basically has no role in reviewing future developments, period. Am I correct in that?

So I don't want to, but the design review established objective standards and that's supposedly their answer. You know, you fit into one of these boxes. It's okay with us. I mean, I don't want to put words in their mouth, but that's okay.

Yeah, that's true. Okay, yeah, I just wanted to, I guess, get a clarification on that. I guess we'll see as these projects enter the pipeline if that works, and I guess it can get revised later on. If it doesn't, Sacramento willing, of course. All right. With that, I'm ready to vote.

OK. OK. So how would you vote on the resolution to send this to the city council?

Commissioner Havel? Aye. Commissioner Roach? Aye. Commissioner Tiernan's an aye as well. And I do want to commend staff. It looks like it was a lot of work, a lot of red ink to try and change stuff and make it more streamlined. And let's hope that that helps in the process. And to touch on what Commissioner Havel was talking about a little earlier, Yeah, I think that the regional numbers come down from some other entity, the Bay Area ABAC, excuse me. And so between them and I think our members of the Assembly or Senate, those are the people I think we have to try and twist arms. Except for a n

We have to hold an election to elect you first, Peter.

Well, OK. We'll get around to that. If there's no other nominees, then we don't. Any other nominations for chair? No. OK. For the position of vice chair, the floor is open for nominations.

Any other nominations for vice chair? Nope. OK. With that, I will declare a white ballot for both positions. Congratulations. All right. That pretty much concludes our business from staff's perspective. Anything coming at us, something that we need to know? When's our next meeting?

SO DEMOLITION IS STILL UNDERWAY AT FIREMEN'S FUND? IS THERE ANY MOVEMENT TOWARDS THAT HAVING MOVED FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS?

I see. I see. And get it below 150 units.

We shall see. Unless there's anything else from the commissioners, I'll adjourn this meeting. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.