City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, this is the city of Reno Planning Commission meeting dated March 18th, 2026. The time is 6:00 p.m. We will begin with the pledge of allegiance. Uh Mr. Foster, lead us off. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands.

Mr. Clerk, roll call, please. Chair Jacquman, here. Williams, here. Bera, here. Delvr absent at this time. Gonfontini here. Roier here. Mr. Chair, you have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And right back to you a three public comment.

It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person. It may pertain to matters both on and off the planning commission agenda. Please note that the planning commission may not take action upon any matter not agendaized for possible action on today's agenda. When you're called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer. If there's disruptive behavior, and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. Mr. Mr. Chair, I don't have any requests to speak forms for opening public comment. Voicemails or correspondence were received for the meeting and they've been forwarded to the planning commission for review. Just confirming we don't have anyone in the room.

Do we have any request to speak at this time in chambers? You will have opportunities as the items go through as well. Seeing none, we will move forward to uh A4, approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So, Commissioner Williams second. First and a second. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Agenda is approved unanimously. We will now go to staff announcements. Item B.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A few announcements this evening. Um, as some of you may know, this board also serves as the capital improvements advisory committee. Um we will convene that board at our second meeting in April, which is April 15th at 5:00 to discuss um the regional road impact fees and police impact fees. If you are unable to make that adjusted timeline, please let Cali know so we can confirm that we'll have a quorum. Um last week at city council, they approved the Whispering Road zoning map amendment. Um that will go to second reading at their meeting next week on March 25th. Also on March 25th, which may be of interest to some of you, uh staff will make a presentation on data centers and take direction um regarding initiation of an amendment to title 18 to review and modify requirements for data center uses and also take direction on regulations related to live entertainment.

Uh Commissioner Rormmy, you had a comment. Uh yes, I just wanted to point out that March 25th is also a joint interim growth and infrastructure and uh interim natural resources committee legislative workshop on data centers. Certainly have let city council members know this that that would be a inconvenient time since so many members of the public uh cannot be in both Carson City and Reno at the same time. Thank you. Any other staff announcements? Nothing further.

Okay, we will move forward to our public hearings. We will start with item C1. This is a staff report for possible action. Uh case number LDC26-000051, Highland Tentative Map Time Extension. We'll begin with a presentation from staff. Miss Mcadin.

Good evening, commissioners. Grace McAdin, senior management analyst for the record. Uh, I will wait for my presentation to come up. I'm here to present the Highland tenative map time extension. So, this body has seen a few of these come forward. Um, this is a request for a time extension to an already approved tenative map, which case number was LDC 26003. Um, this tenative map is located north of Sky Vista, kind of by just around that Walmart that's up there. Uh it includes about 29 or 219 single family lots, 288 multif family lots and about three just under four acres of a commercial area. So this map is set to expire in November. Um approval of this request will grant them a two-year time extension. That's the presentation. Um recommended motions on your screen. Um approval of this request, like I said, will grant them a two-year time extension. There's been no changes in code or state law that would kind of impact the decision of this request. So staff's recommending approval. Um, and there's a motion and I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Miss Mcadin. And now I understand we'll have a presentation virtually from the applicant representative. Is that correct? Okay, that's correct. We're moving Mr. Kmpotic over right now. One second, Mr. Compatronic. Will we pull up your present? Always that little pause when you're uh brought in as a panelist. Can Can you all hear me? Okay.

Yes, we can. Thank you very much. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair.

John, if you can please let us know when you're ready to advance the slides. Yeah, basically it's uh just two slides similar to the one that uh if you could go ahead and um and uh put that up. You can see the vicinity map there. Gives you some context relative to the basically the busiest part of uh Lemon Drive, Lemon Valley, you know, in that in that fairly intense area. And then the area in orange of course is the site as described by Grace. Next slide, please. And so there is gives again a little bit different perspective. You can see the tobo and some of the shadowing in the background. I just got cut off. Can you hear me? Okay.

Yes, we can hear you.

Right. Yeah. There some something about a decoder. I never trust how technology is really working until I get until I get affirmation. Um so you know we worked uh for a year on this going back four years ago. Uh the timing was impeccable relative to the increase in interest rates. And you guys hear a lot about single family lots now and making deals work. And this thing has simply been it's really I think a wonderful project. Small lots, good use of the land. You got that multif family component, three different uh single family products, but it simply doesn't work economically now with the sum of interest rates. I put this in narrative if you guys had a chance, but when we walked out of the chambers three years ago, interest rates were 3.5%. And and a matter of a few months later, they were 7%. And so that kind of tells the story for entry-level housing of which this is trying to hit in the marketplace. So, I I could get into all the inflation stuff and all that and about how tough it is, but the applicants and we would really appreciate uh the granting of the two-year extension. Hopefully the market is such in that time period where we can make a go of this. That's all I got and and I' I'd be happy to take on any questions you might have. Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you. We will now move to disclosures from the commission. Starting with Commissioner Velto. Uh Commissioner Velto. No disclosures other than I believe I was on the commission when this was first approved. Commissioner Compantini read and reviewed the materials.

Uh Commissioner Jockman, on this matter, I sought guidance from legal counsel. I am currently working on a project in Wo County where my employer uh is under contract with a consortium of property owners. While I and my employer have no contract or agreement with Mr. Kotic, he frequently consults on project decisions which involve me here. I do not have a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of the applicant or the representatives and can be fair and impartial in my deliberation regarding this item. Commissioner Williams, I've read and reviewed material. Commissioner Ror, Commissioner Roser, read and review material and I am familiar with the site.

And Commissioner Ror, could you please repeat that? You cut out for a second. Uh, yes, same disclosures. Thank you. We uh that concludes disclosures. We will now head to questions from the commission and uh Commissioner Bisera. Great. Thank you. Uh hey John, good to have you in the interwebs here. Just a commission. Yeah. Yeah. Just a couple quick ones since

Yeah. Yeah. Since the November 22, h has there been any significant changes to the transportation network in the north valleys that you're aware of like along 11 drive, Sky Vista Parkway 395 that were not anticipated in the original traffic impact analysis that uh that might give us pause or give us reason to reconsider that or is everything pretty much the same? Um, that's a good question and I believe that that you know that divergent diamond interchange at Lemon um did happen since the project approval. It certainly doesn't change the market and the economics but it helps with you know the overall operation of roadway network in that area.

Okay. And I know this is pretty standard and we tend to we tend to offer an extension. I think uh Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, like uh applicants kind of get a a kind of graceful extension, if you will, not required, but we can extend it once, but not more than once. Is that correct? That is correct. So, under NRS allows for a two-year time extension. Um there's no findings in this case, so it's essentially a a procedural matter. Okay. All right. That sounds good. All right. Thanks, John. That's all I have. Thank you. Thanks, Mike.

Commissioner Velto, did you want to You've got nothing. Okay. If there are no further questions, we will go to deliberation and entertain a motion. Should one be made for the time extension? Uh, Commissioner Belto, I think we should grant the time extension. In my experience, there's been no test that's really been articulated by this body or and there's no test in stat no test in statute as to when an extension should be granted. In the past, what we have done is if there's any reason that seems to be articulated by the applicant that seems reasonable, we've granted the extension request. So, I I think we should uh I can support granting the extension of time to record the final map.

Thank you. And I I believe was that a motion in there or was that just a uh happy to make a motion. Okay, please proceed. Go ahead. In the matter of case number LDC26-0051 uh based upon compliance with the with NRS 278.360. Uh I move to approve a 2-year time extension for the Highland tenative map and conditional use permit subject to the original conditions of approval. Bera second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. I I I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That in that concludes item C1.

Thank you. Commissioners have good hearing. This is uh Commissioner Bazer. Just a quick side note here, more of a uh maybe to assist uh Commissioner Belto for a moment. Um I think your name tag is just swapped and just just so people don't miss uh call you. You might we might want to fix that for a moment. I was trying to be undercover. Thank you, Commissioner Bisera. You're You're very welcome. Thanks so much. We'll pause for a minute.

Item C2. This is a staff report for possible action LDC26-000052 uh Mendoza side setback deviation. For this we will begin with a presentation from staff. Miss Mcaden.

Good evening again uh commissioners. Grace McAdan, senior management analyst for the record. And now I will switch gears and discuss the Mendoza side setback deviation case number LDC26-000052. So the subject site is located in Ward 4 on Scots Scottsdale Road. That's north of North McCarron and southeast of Clear Acre. The applicant is requesting a major deviation to reduce the required sideyard setback from 5T to 2.9 ft. The master plan for this site and the surrounding properties is single family neighborhood. There's multiple policies in the master plan that support this request. Um, but mostly I wanted to touch on policies that kind of talk about disturbance of hillsides and grading. And I'll talk about this a little bit more further on in the presentation, but by allowing them to deviate from side setbacks and place the addition where they're planning, um, it kind of preserves and keeps the rear of the lot, which is the major kind of hillside, free from disturbance and preserves that hillside. Uh, the zoning for this site and the surrounding properties is single family, eight units per acre. So to reiterate, the applicant is requesting a major deviation to reduce the side setback from 5 feet to 2.9 ft to help facilitate a remodel. This remodel will occur kind of at the northern side of their house. The key issue staff analyzed with this request was compatibility with surrounding uses. The proposed addition will fit into I'll show you some pictures of the site later on, but it fits into existing parking area while also maintaining more than sufficient parking on site. Uh, and then like I said, the hillside and the back of the yard will remain undisturbed. You can kind of see the contours there, the back of the site, just showing that that's where the significant hillside starts. Uh, so it helps um kind of limit those construction impacts that we might

otherwise see. Um, also hours of construction will be limited. the window openings on the north side of the site which are abudding the neighbor will be limited to help protect privacy. So here's some of those pictures of where the um addition will be placed. You could see it's kind of a little carport that exists. Um and they also like I said have sufficient parking for the current house and the addition already on site. So staff was able to make all of the required findings for major deviation. The recommended motion is on your screen and I am available for questions and I I don't know if the applicant is here. Um but if you have questions, please let me know.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation at this time or just be available for questions? Hearing none, we will that concludes our presentation. We will now move to disclosures from the commission. Commissioner Valto. Commissioner Valto, no disclosures. Commissioner Compantini, read and review materials. Jockman, no disclosures. Commissioner Williams, uh, read and reviewed material. Sarah, read and re reviewed material. And I am familiar with the site. Uh, Commissioner Rormmy, any disclosures?

Uh, hearing hearing none, we will move to uh, public comment on this item. Mr. Clerk, thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have someone registered to speak on this item. Min, if you'd like to speak, please approach the podium, state your name for the record, and you'll have three minutes. Uh, hi. Um, it's more so just a question. Please state your name for the record.

Min Swan. Uh, yeah. I'm actually speak on behalf of my mother who's the owner of the property right next to the one being um proposed. And I'm just curious if like this would stop us from being able to do something similar like in the future. Yeah. So, we do not answer questions posed by the public, but we may entertain asking that question of the applicant. Yeah. I was hoping they would uh be here or something. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry. No, no problem. Do we have any other items under public comment for this hearing?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have anyone else registered to speak in person. Is there anyone on Zoom who'd like to give public comment? If you'd like to give public comment by Zoom, please use the raise hand button. I don't believe we have anyone else registered for this item. Mr. Chair, do we have any other requests to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, that will close public comment on this item. We will now move to questions from the commission. Uh, Commissioner Velto, I have one after. Um, hi Grace. Uh, uh, Mr. Min just asked whether us acting on this item would preclude his family from doing the same. Is there a response you have?

Yeah, thank you for the question. It would not preclude you guys from being able to make the same request. Um, obviously we review all requests on their own merit. So, we'd have to look at your particular development that you wanted to build and and we could help you through that process. Thank you. Hi, Grace. Commissioner Williams.

Thanks, Commissioner Williams. Hi, Grace. Um, that brings up an interesting question. Uh, when I was looking at all three of these today, we have some that are really testing this 50% boundary or reduction size. like can you tell us or at least me when would the city step in and say that two and a half feet is is not appropriate? I'm just trying to gauge like we're getting really close to if that's the neighbor and he also wants to go 2 and 1/2 ft. You know I see a lot of these are sold as you know well the other neighbor 7T away so this 2 and 1/2 ft doesn't make it or the 2.9 ft. So, I'm just trying to get your thoughts on how should I take that as a commissioner and and when would you guys step in and say, you know, 50% is not appropriate or 52% is 48% is not appropriate.

It's a it's a yes, it's a great question. We get a lot of major deviations. It's probably one of the um most common application this body sees and

a lot of it has to do with what we're able to look at these on a case- by case basis. So, we're able to look at our um fire code regulations, our building separation standards. So, we're able to get different departments involved and say, "Okay, well, maybe we're not going to have window openings on this side um or lighting on this side." And so, aside from building in that flexibility and code, it allows us to have each request and look at them, like I said, on their own merits. Um, apart from maybe just making the sideyard set back two and a half ft since we're seeing so many of those, we're allowed to add conditions to make it compatible with the area and the neighbors. Okay. I'm not sure if that helps. Yeah, it does. Thanks, Grace.

Uh, Commissioner Visera.

Great. Thank you. Hey, Grace. Um, uh, kind of build upon that line of questioning. Um, you know, one of the one one of the opposition comments that we received uh identifies as an architect and specifically states that the parcel is large enough to accommodate the ADU 2 point and some change feet further from the property line without a deviation. Have you all evaluated whether the ADU could be redesigned to comply with that 5ft setback or what would be lost? Yeah, we looked at obviously other places on site that they could place the ADU which is not desired because of the slope. Um so we we would prefer it based on you know placed here any addition placed here. Um we also looked at redesigning it so that they wouldn't have to do a de a deviation and there it's a pretty tight area. You can see from the picture in my slide that they're fitting into. Um, and so there just wasn't an opportunity to redesign it to also kind of meet that setbacks and and be able to fit into Let me pull it up.

So that's the area at the bottom. You can see that they're fitting this addition into. Um, so it would be a little awkward if they were maybe like a foot or two from that concrete wall. And so this addition will just kind of slide right in. not it's not a manufacturer, but it'll be able to fit right into that existing space, which is why it made more sense than than making it maybe a foot or two away from that concrete wall. I'm not sure if that's helpful. Uh, no, it it does help. Thanks, Grace. Um, I do have another question here, but I'll let folks chime in as well, other folks. But a quick side note as well. I think on the webinar chat, Commissioner Roar mentions that there was no disclosures because there's and there was some audio issues or something. No, just just for the record. Mike,

Commissioner Roar Meer, if you have any disclosures, please feel free to to add to anything you intended previously. Uh, no. I have no disclosures. I'm not sure if you can hear me. We can hear you now. Perfect. Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Visera, I'll take one more, I suppose. Um the there was another comment that expressed concern, Grace, that this might become a Airbnb or short-term rental. And um I know that was kind of a hot topic last year or the last 18 months. Uh since then, does the city regulate short-term rentals in SF8 zones?

Nope. We don't regulate short-term rentals at all. Yeah. Right. Okay. So, if this is if this ADU is approved, is there anything preventing the owner from operating it as a short-term rental? And would that change the intens in intensity analysis under finding number one? No, there's nothing preventing them also from renting out a room in their house as a short-term rental, right? Um, and so that's just not a piece that we currently uh regulate. Okay, great. Thanks, Grace. Do we have any other questions at this time? Hearing none, we will now move to deliberations and entertain a motion should one be made.

Commissioner Williams, I'm happy to make a motion. Please proceed. All right. In the case of LDC 26-000052 Mendoza setback, based upon uh compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Gonini. I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C2. Great. Item C3, staff report for possible action. And this is a recommendation to city council LDC26-00003 Clearacre Commons master plan and zoning map amendments.

Good evening. This is my last one for the night, I swear. Uh Grace McAdin again, senior management analyst here to present Clearacre Commons master plan amendment and zoning map amendment. The subject site is 27.32 acres in size. It's located south of the TMCC campus between Clearacre and 395. The applicant is requesting a master plan amendment from single family neighborhood and public quasi public to suburban mixed use, a zoning map amendment from single family three units per acre to mixeduse suburban and also a tier amendment from tier 2 to tier one. So I wanted to first start by offering a little background. This site's it's a little unique. Uh the site was acquired by city of Reno from uh an RTC interchange project. Uh the city entered into an agreement with the Northern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council Development Corporation. Uh this agreement, among other things, requires that the organization build at least 400 affordable housing units and 240 workforce units.

Miss Mcadin, I apologize. I had a commissioner request to do disclosures before this item began and I forgot. That's okay. Uh could you please hold for a sec? We're going to go through disclosures and then we'll proceed with your presentation. Uh Commissioner Velto.

Yes. Thank you. Uh pursuant to NRS 281A.420 of the Nevada Ethics and Government Law, I am required to disclose a potential conflict of interest before any discussion, vote, or action is taken on the Clearacre project. My law firm represents the property owner and applicant in this matter, the Northern Nevada Building and Construction Trade Council Development Corporation. This attorney client relationshipship constitutes a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of the applicant because the applicant has a direct pecuniary and business interest in the outcome of the clearacre project. Now before this commission my profession my private professional relationship with the applicant could reasonably be viewed as affecting the independent judgment uh that I can make on this matter. I'm making this disclosure on the record so that the commission, the applicant, and the public are fully informed of the nature and potential effect of this relationship on any action I may take. Therefore, I will abstain from voting, discussing, and otherwise participating on this matter.

Commissioner Gentini, no disclosures. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, read email from the applicant. Commissioner Williams, read and review material and familiar with the area. Commissioner Bisera read and reviewed material and I am familiar with the project site. Commissioner Roy Meer. No disclosures. Okay, that we hear everyone that time. We will now go back to the presentation from staff. My apologies. Please proceed.

Back to background. Um so like I said, the city entered into an agreement with the Northern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council Development Corporation. Um, among other things, this agreement required them to build at least 400 affordable units and 240 workforce units. And so, this request will help them facilitate that needed density. So, now we'll discuss the request. First, I wanted to discuss compatibil compatibility, which is talked about in the staff report. The site is surrounded by TMCC, residential, and the freeway. It's within a half mile of neighborhood centers, and Clearacre is considered an arterial. Um so this intensification is kind of you could see um supported by some of the intensification of the surrounding uses. So again the applicant is requesting a master plan amendment from public quasi public and single family to suburban mixed use. Uh this will like I said help support the needed density and the change in master plan is supported by numerous policies in our uh reimagine Reno master plan document. So we're also looking at a zone change from mixeduse suburban and SF3 to all mixeduse suburban. So you can just see that it's kind of a lot of the site is already zoned mixeduse sub suburban and then there's a sliver that's um SF3. And so this only applies to 11.01 acres of the site. uh and because of the density differences between SF3 and MS um this zone change will help facilitate that need to density and it'll also make it easier just more conforming having the site be one zoning district. So this is a comparison of development standards from SF3 to mixeduse suburban. It's a clear intensification but kind of discussed throughout the presentation. It's needed because of this agreement.

Uh it's also supported by the surrounding area and uses. Staff was all able to make all the required findings for a master plan amendment and we were also able to make all of the findings for a zoning map amendment. The recommended motion is on your screen. I'm available for questions and I believe the applicant has a presentation as well. Thank you.

Good evening, planning commission chair. My name is Brook Oswald. I'm with the RET group uh representing the project tonight. So, this is a master plan zoning map amendment. These are high level approvals. So, what we're looking at is that suitability of the land. As this moves to progress and we look at development, that's when we'd anticipate your hi um geotechnical report, hydraology report, traffic report and sewer report coming in. So those would be in the future. This is uh right now is that suitability of of the land for the um zoning. We're pulling it up right now. Yep.

Go ahead. I can probably talk a little bit more. So, the the owner of the property, the the agreement that was we are obliged to build a certain amount of uh needed affordable housing in the city of Reno and and workforce housing. I'm just going to define those really quickly for you so you understand what those actually mean. So, affordable housing means between 50 and 80 AMI. That's average medium income of a household. And your workforce housing is going to be about 80% AMI to 120% AMI. So this sli this group of housing that that is being is is through this uh facilitated through this zoning and master plan amendment are those really needed pieces of housing we need in Reno that we've talked about for years.

Mr. Oswald if I may interrupt briefly uh commissioners Bera or Roor could you please confirm that the uh online the presentation is now showing we we appeared to have a problem with that. Um I can see the I can see you all uh from the dis and the presentation before you like or behind you. Why don't we hold for one minute to get that cleared up and then we'll proceed. My apologies. Oh, it's back up now. Okay, let's proceed.

Y uh the location and context. Uh Grace went over that really quickly. It is 27.3 acres. Currently, it's uh six parcels. You are seeing the TMC campus up above fair amount of hillside uh going up that way but down on our side uh is suitable for development. We are the public quasi public quasi public single family neighborhood is what we currently are a mass planner zoning is mixeduse suburban and SF3 that's single fami three units per acre and there is that economic development and purchase agreement uh that is there that sets a number of terms as uh grace uh said that the property was sold and as part of that sale of that uh property of the city to to the developer they have to uh build certain things quickly go into the uh building and construction trades council in Northern Nevada. Um they are nonprofit group. They do mentoring, apprenticeships and another and so we'd anticipate future development actually would help uh to support their group and their needs as as development continues. Key goals on this are to create a consistent regulatory framework for the project. That's for both the city and the applicants. So we both have an understanding coming in how we're going to meet the obligations there to deliver affordable and workforce housing with long-term affordability covenants. Those have to be held for a minimum of 30 years. So that's extensive period of time that those will remain in that uh the integration of neighborhood serving amenities and infrastructure. We'll see infrastructure improvements as showed on grace. There's a dot there. We're anticipating a new water tumba water tank going in there that would service the project but also helps create that redundancy to uh other neighborhoods. Uh workforce development through the apprenticeship programs and during construction that I spoke about and then that coordination of the city and

regional policies for that mixeduse development. Uh this just so everyone has that's 395 and the clearacre road. our master plan amendment. We are looking to go from the public quas public to the single family tier. So as we look at that, we would bring that all into uh that suburban mixeduse master plan. As you can see, we do have bits of that surrounding the area and kind of a mosaic of of different zonings there, but MF30 and that MFU seem to dominate through a large portion of that. Um we really need to we need to align the land use the underlying land use with the the proposed development and the the regional infrastructure. Uh this helps us to support compact growth and infield development. Uh and it's using that existing urban services uh efficiently. We already have we're already providing police and fire and those other services in that in this area. Uh facilitate and coordinate the mixeduse residential, commercial and civic uses. We're implementing the economic development workforce housing policies. So, the city of Reno has not outside of the master plan, they also have strategic policies that they're looking at and and I'll focus a little bit more on those. As you saw in Grace's presentation, there was a long list of master plan policies that this supported. In addition, this supports a number of strategic pro uh policies, and those are those more short-term policies that the city's really looking on. one of the main ones being uh of affordability of housing and homelessness and then so kind of running through those this integrates it's interesting sort of the sustainable and e equitable development uh principles um and then we're ensuring that long-term community benefit through that strategic site planning adherence to the infrastructure capacity our zoning map amendment we are looking to bring half the site a little under half

the site uh equivalent to the the MS zoning that's already applied to the site. Uh this helps us to if with the SMU to implement that those are are conforming zoning under that SMU master plan. It provides that predictable regulatory framework and and uh to that to go with the long-term land use goals. We preserve that flexibility for residential, commercial, and civic uses. That does allow those all uses and that allows as this project moves forward for that design flexibility which is needed on a site of 27 acres and uh with some of the requirements through uh the agreements support, coordinate and compact the walkable development. As we see, this will be sort of a community in and of itself with, uh, the city requiring certain amenities, uh, connectivity, uh, parks, recreational things happening within the development and supports that compacted growth and infill development. Although this is just out that McCarron loop and we're often looking at that infill in the McCarron, this is really just that that step that moves through the next stage. Um with that that that city of the development I have had uh was mentioned in the staff report and um and I have had meetings with the director and staff at uh Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency. This will require a tier change. Uh as shown from the email correspondents, they they were supportive of that and my conversations also showed an understanding and a support to bring that into tier one. So that's really bringing that into that uh compact growth and infill policies and then advancing the city housing economic development objectives. Um we need to meet we need to meet that development agreement we made. This helps helps this along. This is the the first step in that. And then those long-term community benefits through uh the public private kind of partnership that's been

established here. Uh just to reiterate once again we have the development agreement. It establish those obligations, timeline and responsibilities for both the city and the developer. This amendment is needed to satisfy those housing obligations and it provides that certainty for phasing infrastructure and public improvements. So we're looking at this logically as we move forward. Public benefits are that in increased housing supply including those affordable units and the economic stim will see through uh construction and the long-term community in investment. We did do a a fiscal analysis on this property and it show showed a positive net revenue projected for the city through taxes, fees, and impacts and uh developer funded infrastructure reduces those city expenditures that we'd see. And then you have that long-term economic and fiscal benefits that really exceeds the cost of this pro project that we're getting. I'll leave with that. This is the group that was involved and I'm available for questions if as needed. Thank you. We have done disclosures already and we've seen the presentations. We will now move to public comment. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did have one person register for public comment in chambers. We have Sue Morrison. Sue, if you'd like to speak, please approach the podium. State your name for the record and you'll have three minutes.

Hi, my name is Sue Morrison. I have never spoken to you guys before, so hello. Um, I live on Ridgerest Drive. It's a stone throw from Clearacre in Scottsdale. They are proposing at least 600 more units in that incredibly incredibly congested area. Um, first of all, let me say that they for some reason there's there's a freeway access to 395 if you're going south on Clearacre. For some reason, the RTC has taken away the merge lane. I don't know why, but it's now immediate uh a metered immediate merge and then a couple hundred feet later is that immediate merge with the McCarron traffic and it is a mess. Um the only positive thing I can see about this is if it's um special housing and good housing, it's very close to the bus stops on Clearacre. But coming out of Scottsdale, we often wait two full rotations of the traffic light just to get onto Clearacre. It does a lefthand turn and you guys are talk they are talking about putting more stuff on that left-hand turn that goes uh be west on Scottsdale. It's just seems um like to me there's too much congestion to be able to put that huge of a project there. And I might be jumping the gun because you said you were going to talk about traffic later, but the impact on traffic is going to be absolutely horrendous with the new change to the metered lanes coming off of uh Clear Acorata 395. That's it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, we did also receive correspondence for this item. These were forwarded to the planning commission and have been entered into the record. Is there anyone on Zoom who'd like to give public comment on this item? If you'd like to give public comment by Zoom, please raise your hand. Seeing none, do we have any other requests to speak in chambers at this time? Hearing none, we will close public comment and move to questions from the commission. Mr. Chair, I guess I'll start. Okay, please proceed. Um, let's talk about traffic. Who wants to handle that? Grace,

I'll start and then I'm sure he'll have to come save me. Step in. Okay. Thank you so much. Um I'm really struggling with this aspect of it and I have been all day. Um our job is to meet a series of findings at the best that you know we understand and and are given the information. Our general review criteria discusses mitigates traffic impacts and we have nothing to look at. And um in this case I I often wonder if this commission has been given too much information

because I feel like if we just were handling the changes to the code and the land use we that would be a lot cleaner. But now we're also handed something with a lot of units and um a decent amount of traffic. And so I'm struggling with how in my role am I supposed to find those that criteria um now that I know that there's a you know 700 units coming um in that area. So I just kind of wanted to get your thoughts on that if you had any maybe you could guide us um a little bit how the city feels.

Definitely. Um it's a unique situation because like you said it's a higher level application and so usually we don't see the specifics of the development at this point. We're just looking at land use compatibility in the master plan. Uh because city council entered in an agreement which that decision's been done. the decision for the number of units has been made by the city council and it put you know it it's a little bit of a unique situation we don't see often where they've kind of made the decision about the unit count and now you have to retroactively zone it and make it compatible and all of those things. Um traffic will be reviewed at time of building permit if those traffic counts are um hit the threshold of required by code to look at the to require traffic analysis um or if a site planer view is triggered. will look at them at that point as well. So, um it will be analyzed. Um it will be looked at once we get to the actual development so we can look at the full scope of the project. Um but this is just the higher level right now where we're looking at the broad zoning and master plan.

Okay. If I could just add to that and Grace did a great job and she she was gracious enough to pinch hit for me tonight. I actually wrote the staff report. We'll be presenting this to council. I saw that um the this project will trigger a full traffic impact analysis regardless. Okay.

Just based on anything that generates more than 200 um average or peak hour trips is going to trigger a full analysis which this clearly will. Um and that study will be coordinated not not only through the city but with RTC and NDOT. Um and we'll identify any improvements that need to be made um including the Scottsdale Clearacre intersection. um and any of the surrounding roadway network.

Okay. Thanks, Mike. Uh one other thing, so thanks, Grace. You did a great job. Um based on what you said, my my additional thought previous to being here tonight was to uh make a a separate condition, an additional condition that relates to making sure that this is this does happen before um anything moves forward. Is that is what you're saying? So, master plan amendment and zoning map amendment applications cannot be conditioned. They need to stand on their own merit. We cannot add conditions because they're not project specific. Um, you can certainly make your comments known for the record. Um, okay. Yeah.

I I think when I look back, I just want to make sure that this body acknowledged that we do have a project in front of us and that this one little section, you know, in most cases maybe wouldn't be found. So, can I make that as an additional um comment to um city council as as part of our recommendation? C certainly like say you can say for the record, we can convey that to council when we present. Great. Thank you both. Commissioner Bisera.

Great. Thank you. Um and I guess now that we know Mike wrote this, uh might be geared towards him, but uh whoever wants to take it. I guess I I do have a few here. Um, see, uh, in the in the staff report, it was indicated that the applicants had originally requested an SPD or specific plan district and that staff found no benefit to that approach. Um, would you all mind just elaborating on that? Like from a planning standpoint, would wouldn't an SPD have provided the tailored development standards and phasing requirements, community amenities that MS zones by multif family entitlement does not guarantee? So specific plan districts are typically for projects that have unique characteristics or proposing deviations from code. Everything that was proposed or is proposed with this project is permitted under standard zoning. So we do not foresee a reason to have a special zoning district for something that could be done under current code and and essentially has triggers within code for additional review through whether it be site plan review or major site plan review for grading. Um the as I mentioned the traffic there's provisions a system of checks and balances so to speak already built into code to address those impacts. um the fact that that could be done, we did not see why an SPD would be warranted to have a special zoning district that would essentially, for lack of a better term, regurgitate code.

Okay, great. Thanks, Mike. And so maybe I'll ping pong with Brooke there if you don't mind. Uh Brooke, would you mind kind of with that in mind just so we have a good understanding? Um why did you or your you know your uh client want to pursue an SPD? Was there something that was hoped for that would be a benefit maybe to the project and the surrounding residents or the area?

Uh Brook Oswald, for the record, we we looked at it for the ability to provide that clarity of where potentially development could go, but once again, it would be that conceptual within that that range that we'd want. We'd had several uh discussions with staff and through that we we came back to really uh feel that what we what we wanted to accomplish could be accomplished through the standard zoning and then the benefit that we saw uh you're not locking in an SPD. So you're if something came up or they weren't able to thing, now you're locked into a certain design in the SPD and you're having to come back. With standard zoning, you have that flexibility. Um if something did happen or or or something was phased, you still have that that base zoning to fall back on that that allows that multiple of uses. So that land could um it could move in a different way versus an SPD, you've pretty much locked in how it would move in that and the direction it would have to take.

Okay, great. Thanks. Thanks, Brooke. And I since since I have you there, I I had one for you that um I guess I'll just ask you since the agreement uh I believe includes an apprentichip training requirement during construction, would you mind describing the workforce development component in more detail and how it will be structured? Um, you know, we actually have a representative uh from from the trades here. Uh, if they would like to come forward and and just describe that, it may be more helpful than me taking it. Yeah. Yeah. Wonderful. I think that'd be great.

Good evening. Rob Benner. Uh I'm the executive secretary treasurer of the Northern Nevada Building Trades Council. Uh we're the ones bringing the project forward tonight. Um there will be a workforce requirement or development requirement on these projects. Uh I don't know if you're familiar, but I think a couple years ago we were in front of you for our Carville Park Apartments project that we did a um we had to do some changes on. uh we do have a 20% apprenticeship requirement on that project. So like any project any anybody uh 20% of the work hours on that project have to go to apprentices. Uh I guess I should have prefaced this with we you know the council we are the we are the umbrella group over all the construction trade unions. Uh the development corp is RC3. So we are tied in with all the construction unions and all the apprentichip programs. So we see this project, any project going forward as an opportunity to bring in people into the construction industry and use these residential projects to help train the next generation of construction worker because it's really, you know, these projects are perfect for uh first first and second year apprentices when they start out uh because you know, you know, they're just getting going. They're not used to the big jobs. It's better to throw first and second year apprentices on say you know multifamily project than it is to actually throw them on a Google or a switch or a big job like that where you know safety could be an issue. So we see you know this as a a training ground for next generation of construction. I don't know if that answered the question or not but

uh for me it does and I hope that it's been insightful for also um any residents uh tuning in this evening and the rest of the body. Thank you. Can I ask you one question before you leave? How many of these projects do you have going on in our area?

Um, this is going to be the second one. So, uh, the development corp, we were founded back in 1979. We actually build two affordable housing complexes that were complete one uh 100% section 8 properties. Uh, unfortunately, the development corp sold one in the early 2000s. Uh we had one left over which was Carville Park Apartments that was you know 40-year-old affordable housing section 8 apartment building that desperate need of a rehab. Um we were able to partner with a developer uh came in um you know we we're almost done with that. That project's going to be done uh this summer late summer fall. uh Carville Park's going to be done. Uh and then um with that uh out of that project, we were able to partner with RTC and the city of Reno to to buy this property um from RTC through the city um for more affordable and workforce housing. So

great. Thank you. And you know, we we do hope to be back in front of you with more projects. We we we continue we you know our plan is to continue with our work around affordable housing because this something that this community needs and we feel that this is something we can do you know do for the community. Great. Thank you. Great. Yeah, Commissioner Visera.

Yes. Um and I think this will go to staff um or Mike I suppose. Um the the CMS or the concurrency management system finding I I believe it's uh MPA finding number three requires that plans are in place to provide a public service and facilities but since no site plans actually exist at the moment and no traffic studies been being completed but it will be triggered because I think Mike you mentioned that just a bit ago on what basis is staff making this particular finding today and is the commission being asked to like accept this finding on faith that future reviews will address capacity.

So, Commissioner Sarah, I would say that when we look at that, we look at the availability of infrastructure and facilities to serve the project. There are this is essentially an infill site where there's existing public infrastructure and services that that will serve it. Um, clearly if if their traffic report, for example, showed that they could not mitigate their traffic impacts, they would not receive a building permit and the project could not move forward. So, we would basically double check that concurrency with their building to permit review.

Excellent. Thanks, Mike. And just to follow up, it to switch lanes a little bit, and I think this hopefully might help satisfy Miss Morrison's earlier public comment, but regarding finding number two for the MPA, that activities allowed under the proposed land use will be reasonably compatible with nearby land uses. The the material provided shows S SF5 single family to the east across Clearacre Lane and SF3 vacant single family to the south I believe. So what specific analysis did staff conduct to conclude that the unlimited density potential of SMUMS is compatible with these lower intensity designations particularly in the absence of a site plan.

Sure. So once again, code has built-in system of checks and balances that would that requires buffering between uses. Uh clearacre is an arterial roadway. So there's creates a a fairly effective separation from SF5 to the east. Um and then we do have more intense uses to the north. So it it it essentially, you know, like I say, when we when this comes in for building permit review, we are going to do that analysis that the code requires us to do. So there's there's a system of safety checks within the code itself.

Excellent. Thanks, Mike. And I'll uh love one over to Mr. Brooke, unless you want to take it, but I'll just throw it out there. Uh from reading the material, I remember um our our colleagues over at TMRPA recommended requesting specific comments from Tama um regarding future water in infrastructure plans given the adjacent TMWA owned parcel. Were those comments obtained? Yes. And that the TMO's concern was related to a boundary line adjustment that is going through and whether this zoning would affect it and it it does not. So Tommo was satisfied and had no additional comments. Okay, great. Thanks, Mike. I'm going to go and take a step back and let others chime in.

Uh, Commissioner Jockman. So, yeah, I'll I'll ask about traffic and it's largely procedural, so I'll direct this question at staff. So we obviously don't have a traffic study in front of us. That is one of our findings. It's not a disagreement about the findings within the report. It's that we don't have one. So effectively staff is taking the position that the finding is not applicable at this stage. We have to make a recommendation to city council that that finding can be made or that finding is not applicable. Can you please uh explain to me why that finding should not be applicable? I we have seen traffic documentation with these uh application requests before us uh as for instance with stonegate the applicant documented that the traffic impact was less than the PUD that had been previously approved as a part of that. So from staff's perspective at this point we do not have a project that has been formally submitted to analyze. We there's a concept that has been presented by the applicant has not there's nothing no formal application for a building permit for example or site improvement permit has been submitted to this point. We're only looking at the zoning. So that's why we would say at this point that is not applicable but there is a system there code would require that analysis once that once they bring that in regardless. So that analysis and review has to occur regardless of whether this project or another project that is similar to boost forward if they meet those triggers that will occur.

Okay. Thank you Commissioner Bisera. Uh thank you but you know um I I can hold off if others have questions for

please proceed. Okay, fantastic. Um, so does the staff mentioned that the NAB meeting was cancelled due to inclement weather? I think it was those snowy days a bit ago and it's rescheduled for the 19th, which is tomorrow. Um, does staff have any concern about the commission acting before the Navas had an opportunity to weigh in given the scale of this project? The reason that we were comfortable and and coordinated this through um through the the council member for a couple reasons. The applicant also held their own neighborhood meeting and I'll let them speak to that. So there there was a noticed neighborhood meeting as part of this is a requirement for the master plan amendment. Additionally, this will go to the NAB tomorrow night ahead of the city council hearing. So there will be another public hearing following the NAB meeting. Fantastic. Okay. And then uh did the applicant want to speak to how that their own ad went.

Uh Brook Oswald, for the record, uh yes, last uh Tuesday, March 12th, we held a uh a public neighborhood meeting that is required per NRS to process a master plan. Uh we worked with the city uh to notice that as the city notices. So we did that 750 uh parameter. We sent out cards to each of them. Um we did not have any attendees at that. Um but we did notice that to that surrounding group and that was there. We're looking forward to the opportunity uh of going tomorrow night and presenting to the council member in the NAB there. And we do feel that that gives that opportunity to still comment as we're going to council and making sure that those those comments are getting addressed. So, um, we've got the new new changes in the requirement of the NAB and some things have happened in from the time we originally submitted this application to now and we are committed to going to the NAB. We just hit that snowstorm area and were not able to go that night. So,

okay, great. Thanks, Brooke. And I'll just I'll just uh send one one more your way since you're there. Um the the report had stated I believe that the SMU designation was appropriate specifically because the site was within or at least adjacent to an innovation employment area like do you or could you elaborate on what specific employment gener generators are currently operating adjacent to the site and how does this this particular project though create a functional relationship with them rather than simply being proximate?

Sure. I think you know one of the large employers that we're seeing and and not just this area but our region is TMCC um that is located close to the site we always think of teachers but you have janitoriial st you have a number of other uh job opportunities that are offered through there in close proximity so looking at bus lines and some other transit options also the the proximity to be able to drive or move through that we see that as a real supportive to those those existing industries we have uh there additionally as you towards uh north valleys and we're seeing a number of warehouse and other employment opportunities out that way. We see this as kind of centrally located to be able to 39580 and to move to to several employment areas throughout the region.

Okay, great. So, but but so I guess you you kind of spoke more to like uh this is this is appropriate because it's proximate to those but not necessarily because there's a functional relationship or or is it both? Well, I think you'd see some of obviously the the landholder and their apprenticeship program and what's going on there, the TMCC and the educational opportunities that you're seeing there uh for people to advance their careers and and other things. So, uh, I trying to, you know, it's always hard to to predict how people are going to move and and and what's going to happen, but we see the location is is strategic in that it it does center around a lot of things that help, uh, build people's careers, uh, help move them economically to to, um, you know, different goals or different income levels and and that those are close and surrounding and nearby. And so, we think this is really going to help uh to a a dual support of both those systems.

Okay. Thanks, Brooke. And since you did mention TMCC, I guess I'll just throw out that I am on the advisory board for TMCC. And however this project moves forward, if you need help with those relationships, I'm happy to nurture those with you and and stakeholders. Thanks for taking my questions tonight. Thank you, Commissioner. Do we have any other questions from the commission hearing? None. We will now move to deliberation.

Uh, Commissioner Williams, I'll start. Um, turned off my mic. I think for my part, um, this is a fantastic, uh, project and obviously our leaders feel the same way, which is why we're looking at this here tonight. Um, for my part, I would just want to make sure that um the record reflects that we've diligently um looked into the the missing traffic report and their general findings and that we've been provided information that uh it those will be provided and done before uh the project moves forward. So, um with all that being said, I'm I'm happy to support this project. I think it's great, well needed. Um happy to make a motion after deliberation. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I'll I'll say so I've only been on this commission for roughly one year and I've seen a number of applications. I'm sort of curious as we go through deliberation from Commissioner Bisera, Commissioner Roire, Commissioner Velto, we can't lean on for this item, but the um the my question here is largely about procedure because, you know, we're we're basically saying if we if we vote in favor of this, we're taking a stance that we uh do not view that finding to be applicable at this stage. We've had like applications before us that have provided traffic documentation. As far as what the project is, this is very easy, the zoning exercise, very easy to support. Uh we just don't have the documentation doc documentation to allow us to make that finding. So in your experience, commissioners, you've been on this commission longer. Should we be omitting that finding for the substantial conformance that I can see with the master plan uh to allow it to move forward? Curious for any thoughts if you're willing to share them as we deliberate.

Yeah, Commissioner Bisera.

Yeah, absolutely. That's a great uh question and I think one that requires nuance. Um, you know, we we we have dealt with some prickly kind of projects, you know, that that uh kind of put us in a place to really weigh out uh, you know, some some trade-offs, if you will. and and I think the context that Mike provided was good for this particular concern in that you know that uh um based on what's being presented tonight there there was a reason for not having that that side traffic analysis but I I actually agreed with your concerns and that was a big one for me but I I think that what we can do here if if the majority of the body or maybe unanimously who knows decided that this project was okay to move forward we can make it a solid point to to ensure that city council uh heard our concerns there and that at some point uh made it clear that some of these things are expected or required. And I believe Commissioner Williams, you you had similar concerns as well there too. And so I'm behind all of you in in putting forth those concerns to city council and then eventually regional. But but without that context that Mike provided, I would be very hesitant to move this forward without that. Um, I I guess the only Commissioner Williams, for the record, I guess the only other thing I would ask maybe is that is there a way in the future, at least for those of us that are currently sitting on this thing, that we can not be presented a project that in this fashion? I mean, I guess there's a procedure within the city that maybe we can discuss so that this doesn't repeat itself or or these just is this just so one-off that we're likely unlikely to see it again.

Where I would caution the commission is, you know, we can present their conceptual plan, but there's nothing that we can do tonight to condition that they actually build that plan. Um, so we can we can speak in hypothetical terms, but we can't say with a 100% certainty what you see is what you get, so to speak. I I was almost coming from the position of my earlier comments said we almost have too much information that we know it is. It maybe just being presented this as a uh master plan amendment zoning change and then leaving out the the idea of what's going to be built on it so that our we're not thinking that. I just don't know how all that comes to fruition within the city.

It was in this case was provided just as background. Okay. Um of previous action that has been taken, council action regarding the property. Um but we do have a lot of those that come forward that are just master plan amendment zone change with no project in mind at all. So we see those from time to time as well. Okay, fair enough. Thanks, Mike. Commissioner Roar Meyer.

Yes, thank you. I'd say there's um yes, we've been on I've been on the commission for almost three years, seen a gamut of things. Um there's never been a time when I've thought I had too much information about a project. Certainly welcome as much detail as as possible. Uh yes, without the specific plan designation, we are not really allowed to see what the project will look like and how many units and how much traffic. Um I welcome that information. I I do think there's a lot of benefits of course that have been presented workforce um training uh for the apprenticeship um affordable and workforce housing much needed uh access to existing bus lines. I mean from a planning perspective there's a lot of really good here and that I can support. Um, I am hopeful uh when it comes down to density. I I I I am very curious how that's all going to fit in this particular um uniquely shaped parcel. Uh and then with that, I have a strong suspicion that the density goals will fall short um of what can be in realistically built and therefore that will help lessen the traffic burden uh as well. And but my my dearest my deepest hope is that this because of its location encourages use of public transportation, encourages use of bike riding and walking um and that there's a transportation management plan u very much in place to help people get up to school um and to route people in creative ways that don't involve single driver. So I can support that. I don't find that the traffic study is applicable at this time given that this is a master plan and zone change. Um but yes, it is highly applicable once a site

plan um review comes forward or uh if that gets boosted to a cup um or some sort of tenative map if any ownership starts being an issue. Um there will be ways to look at the project again. That said, I've never been a fan of kicking it down the curb. Um because we hear that again. Oh, we get another bite at the apple. Um but I think there's a lot of real merits here. Um I do wish that they had had the ability to go to the NAB prior to this. I really would be curious what the NAB thoughts are. Um and so that's where I stand. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Bisera.

Oh, thank you, Chair. Uh yeah, just wanted to um share additional thoughts. I think earlier I was uh responding to your your uh thoughtful question and um you know I I do I do see this as a as a good project and uh we definitely need housing and good uh entry level housing especially adjacent to those uh schools and those neighborhoods. uh do have concerns around the the density, but you know uh I'm also relooking at some of this this material and you know we there's a city NMBB CTC purchase sale agreement that actually requires uh greater than or equal to 400 affordable and 240 workforce housing units. uh and I'm sure somewhere within the upcoming conversations at council level and regional level perhaps uh that that sale agreement can be used in a constructive way to address some of these uh gaps that are in place right the things that I think Mike you said hey we can't really require that we don't know what's going to be built but hopefully before things get finished finished uh as far as approved um we can lock some some things in place for the benefit of the community and the residents. Um, but with that, I guess, you know, I will be in support of this project, but do share some of those concerns as some of you commissioners.

Do we have any other deliberations from the commission? I'll just say thank you Commissioner Roormire for uh outlining what the precedent has done there in the past. So that um because I obviously without a traffic study it's not even you know concerns about the report. It's the lack of one. So if you're saying that there's precedent for this without a uh to make that finding at the master plan amendment stage given that staff's telling us this will definitely occur before building permit. And you will also um cuz cuz you you you know now it's being speculative here but there's a very good chance of mitigations being needed at that location to meet the city standards. So uh thank you for your comments. I appreciate that and I'll I'll follow your lead on this on this item. Uh Commissioner Visera

there if there is no further deliberation um happy to make a motion. Please proceed. Great. And I think is there two here Mike that you want us to separate or just one whole thing? Just one mic. Just just one. Okay, good. Okay, good. So based upon compliance. All right, let me reference the code or the case number in the matter of LBC26-000051 tenative map. No, no, that's not I'm sorry. I got the

my my files are being stacked here. Give me a second here. Uh, here we go. Sorry guys, my files would be stuck here. All right. In the matter of DC26-00003 clearacre comments, master plan and zoning map amendments. Based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to adopt the master plan amendment by resolution and recommend that city council approve the master plan and zoning map amendment subject to Chucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission governing board approvals and I can make the plans. Commissioner Williams, I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. I will just add in discussion here. I this body is obviously recommending that we have a few differing uh perspectives there from Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Rormmy. uh it may be of value to the applicant to uh you know have a have a further follow-up discussion with staff before this progresses to council because council may not view the interpretation of the findings that I'm following from commissioner Rormmy in the same way. So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I.

I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries 50 with one abstension from recusal from Commissioner Beltto. That concludes this item. We will wait for Commissioner Velto to rejoin us in chambers. Next item is C4. This is a staff report for possible action. Case number LDC26-000049, Aspen View Drive, rear setback deviation. Mr. Foster, please proceed. Well, I know you're disappointed to have me instead of Grace at this point in time, but uh I'm sorry. Um in any case, uh the Jeff Foster, associate planner for the record, bringing you LDC 26-49. Again, the Aspen View Drive rear setback deviation. The project site is about.11 acres in size, located at 5142 Aspen View Drive, about 315 ft north of Sky View Drive. And this is north of Mayan and McCarron, as you can see on the screen. Uh it's currently developed with a single family home and the request before you is a major deviation to reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 ft to 14 ft. Um as we zoom in you can see that the single family home is uh surrounded entirely by entirely by other single family homes and the key issue that staff analyzed is compatibility with surrounding land uses. The master plan land use is single family neighborhood and the zoning district is single family

8 units per acre. Um, some background. Uh, the two-story single family home was built in 1988. Last fall, the applicant added an approximately 10 by 12 1/2 ft second floor deck or balcony uh to the rear of the home without approval. Uh, and that deck and balcony is you can see uh in the turquoise oval there. Um, he has now submitted a building permit to bring this into compliance. Um, and the second floor balcony extends into the rear yard setback by six feet, which is a deviation of 30%. Regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses, uh, the surrounding parcels are developed with similar one and twotory single family homes. Uh, photos that are provided by the applicant illustrate views into the neighboring properties as seen from the balcony and from the existing windows. sight lines from the balcony are substantially similar to those that already existed from the home's second floor windows. Um, which is a condition that exists independent of the balcony. And you can see uh these two representative samples um where the view from the balcony and the view from the previous or the windows that existed prior to the balcony are essentially uh the same. Um likewise, some neighbors can see into the applicant's backyard from their uh seconds story windows. Um several surrounding neighbors have provided letters of support and those are included in the staff report. Uh and staff is recommending condition number five to limit further expansion into the rear setback to pre to preclude any future impacts on neighbors. Here are the recommended findings for a major deviation. Staff can make all recommended findings. Here's the recommended motion. Uh, the applicant is here and will be making a short presentation.

Just click on the arrows to go back.

Oh, I see. Sure. Thank you. Uh, good evening, honorable chair, vice chair, commissioner, member of the public. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Uh, my name is Muhammad Islam. I live in ES 5142 Aspen Drive. I'm a senior software engineer at IGT uh in Reno, Nevada. I hold an electrical engineering degree from the University of Nevada and I have completed my MBA in uh from the UNR 2014. I also proudly served in the United States Navy for four years from 91 to 94. Uh I am here to request approval uh for rare setback deviation for my existing balcony which currently is 14 ft. uh setback resulting in uh six feet shortfall from the required 20 ft setback. In my presentation tonight, yeah, I will outline the circumstances the uh that lead to this condition, demonstrate how the existing balcony condition meet the intent of the development standard and explain why my request uh deviation will not create any adverse impact to the neighboring properties. Uh uh so I'll show some slide here. So this is my existing balcony 10 ft or 12 ft. It required 20 ft setback as already Jeff mentioned. Distance from the rear property line from the post to the balcony is 14 ft. Deviation request is 6 ft short pole. Uh rear house wall is 25 ft. That's it is compliant. So request is to legalize existing structure. No expansion proposed. Why the division is needed? I was unawware the permit division was required. complied immediately once I notified only the support post get the 14 ft measurement and household is compliant object is full compliance through permit inspection and code corrections modern size does not block any views of sunlight doesn't create any new privacy

condition uh second floor windows sight lines already exist in this neighborhood um and there was a plan stop comments and uh compliance summary. So there's a the NAB meeting was canceled actually on the March 10th planning commission meetings for today. Public notice sign was posted before March six. Uh updated corrective plan was provided. Neighbor support letters was provided. Reno fire department noted no conflict with the adopted IFC. So we'll comply with all requirements. So here's the updated site plan. Uh you can see there's a balcony. there's a 14 ft uh from the property line. So I need this shortly 6 ft and the read of city required is 20 ft. So here's this example for the rear view window actually for every every twotory house on our neighborhoods there is a there is a back window so you can see the same view same as from my balcony. So there's a my rear neighbors that's their windows there. This is my side neighbor. You can see there's a window too there. Uh also there's a my left side window. They have made a two-story reading room or something. They relax and go. There is a window there. They can see also us or the surrounding neighbors too. And there is a last couple of slide there's a comparison between the picture from the my balcony and the from the behind my window how I took the picture. So you can see there is not much difference is almost the same. So this is my left side house in uh 5136 Aspen View Drive. Uh the the left picture was taken from the balcony. Right hand side picture was taken from behind the window and it is 5146 Aspen View Drive from my right neighbors and this is 5145 Dood Avenue. Uh this is

my rear neighbor. Uh you can see the picture from the balcony and picture from my behind my windows and this is also my rear view I mean rear side neighbors is 5141 Dstone Avenue. So left picture is from the balcony and right picture from a behind the windows. So neighbor support summit for four adjacent neighbors contacted verbally no objection raised uh signed letter for support included and there's a three neighbors I mean uh three neighbors uh sign the letter one neighbor says they're going to come and speak but I'm not sure if he's here or not. So those are the my four surrounding neighbors who would like 5136 5146 Aspen drive 5145 5141 Dstone Avenue good faith effort uh contacting and fully cooperating with city staff immediately upon notice submitted character plans will complete all required inspection commitment to meet all uh applicable zoning and the building codes request please approve the 6T deviation to the rear setback to legalize an existing modest balcony with no adverse neighborhood impact.

Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you. We will now move to disclosures. Commissioner Velto. Commissioner Velto. Disclosure number two. Um I wish to disclose a interest potential interest related to the matter before us. I own two residential properties located less than one mile from 5142 Aspen View Drive. After careful consideration, I conclude that the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in my situation would not be materially affected by any interest in the specific matter at hand. Uh, and therefore I will hear the matter, but I would like to disclose that for the record. Uh, no other disclosures. Commissioner Gianini, no disclosures. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures.

Commissioner Williams, read and reviewed material. Uh the Sarah read and reviewed material and I am implement the area. Commissioner Roar Meyer same disclosures. We will now move to questions from the commission or entertain a motion. I'm sorry. Public comment. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have um people registered for public comment on this item. We will begin with Travis Scaggs. Travis, please approach the podium. State your name for the record. You will be afforded three minutes. Hello, my name is Travis Skaggs. I live at 5139 Driftstone, which is Kitty Corner behind him. Uh, the applicant. Uh, I find his pictures and, uh, his statement that there there's no concerns to be a bit misleading. Um, it's one thing to look out of a window u occasionally on the second floor and look out. It's another to be out on a deck or time. And these properties are tenth of an acre. We're on top of each other. They're close. Um the they're zots. They're offset. Our neighbors wall of their house forms part of the edge of our backyards. Um, so we're already right on top of each other and I the noise and privacy is pretty big. Uh, I can't My house was only barely shown in those pictures. Uh, but he can see me in three quarters of my house, which, you know, is not a big deal. If it's second floor window, how often are they going to be looking out? But if they're going to be outside on a deck or the people after them going to be outside on a deck, how much privacy do I have? Um I the pictures also I found misleading in that the pictures he took uh you're looking through the bars of the um railing. Well, when you're standing on a deck, are you looking through the

bars? No. you're you're another several feet higher looking down and you can see more of those um those yards. Uh I do apologize. I'm a little

nervous here. Um, also it's I find it difficult to uh go with the fact that uh he didn't know that um permits would need for something that has to be supported attached to his house. That seems he got caught and has now he's saying that, you know, he did it all right, but would he have um I I don't want to cast it, you know, I do not know the man. Uh but he got caught. Uh also that his that his uh statements that all of his neighbors uh didn't have a problem is not true. I spoke to uh Gary Fraud who lives next door to him 5142 and he sent a statement with me that I could share um but his privacy that deck compared to the picture from the window is completely different. They are completely looking down into his yard. Um I guess that's all my statement.

Thank you. Uh we're still in public comment. So, we've got a Can I ask just one question of the gentleman? What was the last address that you gave? Uh, five I believe it's 5142 Aspen. Don't see a 51 5146. 5146. Thank you, sir. Yes, I I have his statement, but Mr. Clerk, next public comment, please. Up next, we have Donna Keats. Donna, please approach the podium. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. While Donna's approaching, if there's anyone on Zoom who'd like to give public comment, please raise your hand at this time. Go ahead, Donna.

Hi, my name is Donna Keats. For the record, this isn't really a major thing for me. I was here for some other reason. But, um, I thought I would comment. Um, if in fact this gentleman did not know he was required to have a permit, then I applaud him for doing everything he's doing and working with staff. But this is a bigger problem. I'm been on the on the NAB for a long time. There are so many things that coming up lately. The volume of setback deviation requests to me is becoming enormous and we're just like flipping them out right left like Sunday. And I think there's some considerations that aren't be taken into account. Like this gentleman just said 14 feet out standing on the edge of the railings in a neighborhood like that. Okay. So he's doing everything right. I want to know at what point do people get penalized, penalized for building and saying, "Oops, mayopa, let me just go fill out my forms. Then I get my deviations and everything's all good." I think this is wrong. It's happening so much everywhere. People are building crossing people's property lines with parts of their garage. Oops. It's already built. Sorry. I guess we got to get a deviation and an agreement with the neighbor and do whatever we're going to do. This is happening all over these denser parts of the city. So my issue is really more conceptual here. One thing I think that's obnoxious have that massive huge thing standing on the edge of the railing. I would have to move if that was coming up behind me. But that's neither here nor there. I mean this gentleman is doing all the right stuff. He's working with staff. They're doing all the right stuff. But I think this process is broken. And I think it's up to the commission to take to council that something needs to be done about this because when there are no penalties, people don't care. They don't get property surveys. They build it right on the property line. Oops, I'm in the setback, but dang, my garage is already there. So, let me go fix it fix it retroactively with no penalty. No

fees for being stupid. No peace for, you know, nothing. I think that's wrong. And I would like to, I guess, use this opportunity of this poor man's problem to suggest that you guys think about this pretty hard with all these deviation requests that are coming up. Think about how to handle them. Think about why we just go pass, pass, pass. Let's do whatever we can to make it be okay because we want to help the citizens, right? But sometimes they just have to take the darn thing down and back it up. Maybe not this one if it's all concrete, but you know, the wooden fence is in the wrong place. Sometimes maybe you just have to say sorry not going to do it. And I think there's a there's a legal precedent that should be set about how to handle this and maybe something in code and maybe a fee structure for people who come to you after the fact just six months later. Oops. Oh my. You know, it's true. You got caught. Maybe I'll get caught someday and I'll have a different story because I'll be sorry I said this. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Donna. Up next, we have Beth Dory via Zoom. Beth, you should be able to unmute. Please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Uh oh. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now.

Oh, perfect. Um, I'm also concerned about reducing required setbacks and I may get the hook and I'll piggyback later. Uh, number one, safety. Reducing required setbacks may increase the time for emergency personnel to access a backyard to put out a fire. This happened to me. A next-door neighbor on Bates Avenue built an addition which encroached into their five-foot setback. In 2020, there was a fire and since the firemen could not access their backyard from their side, they axed our fence and were uh and we were left with shards of fence, damaged fence. We had to deal with that at our own expense. When dealing with conflicting interests, safety should always come first. Number two, the city does not require a recent boundary survey performed by a licensed surveyor prior to building outside the building footprint. In these older neighborhoods, you can pretty much guarantee that a 70-year-old fence is not located on the true property and yet the city will accept a setback letter by an owner, builder, an engineer, etc. The city's justification for not requiring a survey is that it will add cost to the developer. Because of this, I've started to have my property surveyed and am forced to pass this cost on my tenants. Three, many don't consider that when setbacks are reduced that in order to build the addition, you may have to access the adjacent property owners or adjacent owner's property. In Newland, the city awarded a building permit to add an addition to an existing garage with a very narrow setback. The next door neighbor refused to allow the

access to the neighbor to complete the project. Lastly, many older neighborhoods have existing CCNRs which are still active and run with the land. Uh CCNRs trump city codes and have required setbacks baked in. Many homeowners don't realize that even without an HOA, CCNRs may still be enforced by a neighbor in civil court. I have homes that have active CCNRs from the 1940s and they all have required front set front side and back setbacks. For the city not to advise homeowners to seek who seek to reduce their setbacks not to consult their title document is irresponsible at best. Did I make it in three minutes?

You have 17 seconds. Oh my gosh. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, additional correspondence was received for this item. These were forwarded to the planning commission who have been entered into the record. I don't have anyone else registered to speak on this item or indicating they'd like to speak by Zoom. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, we will now close public comment and go to questions from the commission. Commissioner Bisera.

Thank you, Chair. Um just uh Jeff Jeff I guess I was used to the great show for the evening but great to have you. Um the the report that we received this evening stated that the sidelines from the balcony were substantially similar to those from the existing second floor windows. But a balcony is a usable outdoor living space where people can stand, sit, you know, linger, hang out, which I think creates a materially different privacy impact than a window someone occasionally looks through. How did how did staff consider this kind of qualitative distinction in evaluating finding number one regarding significant impact on nearby property?

Thank you, Commissioner Bera. Um I was just waiting for my photos to to show up here. So Oh, yeah. Yeah. All good. Okay. Can you see those? Yes, sir.

Okay. So, um from from purely a um I've got two two responses from purely a standing uh looking at the photo and being able to see into uh the neighbors yards. And this this these represent two of the uh examples that the applicant I show I think showed two or three other uh examples from neighbors. Um but me if I was the one standing on the balcony taking that photo, I could see into my neighbor's yard and then also stepping back through the door looking through the window, I can also see into my neighbor's yard. So, um, while yes, uh, I'm, uh, someone standing at a window may not be utilizing the space for the same amount of time, um, as opposed to being on a balcony. Uh, clearly, just the fact that you can see into the neighbor's yard in both instances was what led me to that conclusion. I would also point out my second thing is that um and to uh the member of the public's um concerns about the usable space uh and to which you are also alluding um that uh he could in theory have built a much smaller deck uh balcony attached to the back of his home. Um that would have also afforded him time outside where he could have sat on a chair and and you know um maybe had a heat lamp or something out there and and been able to look into his neighbor's yard, but that would not have been um uh required a major deviation. So, so, um, point being that, uh, that that you would still have the potential to look into neighbors yards from a balcony that

would not have required him to be here tonight. So, okay. Thank Thanks, Jeff. Appreciate that. There's some nuance here. So, like for that kind of smaller variance of a balcony, um, what would the specs or size be before it would require deviation? and and why would staff, you know, limit the the size of it uh beyond that smaller version?

Yeah. So, great. And I I thank you because that that does definitely allows me to clarify. So, the existing wall, as the applicant pointed out, is 25 ft from his property line. That means that effectively he has an additional 5 ft uh from his back wall that he could have built a deck onto and it would have just been a building permit. and we never would have seen it. Um staff would have looked at as a building permit, but we never would have seen it in terms of debating whether or not, you know, views into neighbors yards and things like that. So, obviously a significantly smaller deck or balcony, but still he could have built a a 5ft deck or balcony and not had any issues. Um Okay.

Yeah. All right. Ju just a a couple quick follow-ups and I I'll yield back, but um uh or I guess a quick one. I think the the ward five NAB meeting was canceled for this one too by council member Ree. And so similar to the previous case tonight, does did did you all staff have any concern about proceeding without the NAB input? Um and actually I don't think that uh was this ward cancelled? I think I think it was March 10th, right? 12th It was the one that was actually cancelled. Okay. I believe in the report anyways. Yeah. To to add to that, the staff report says March 10th, Council Member Reese canceled the meeting.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. So, um, did we have any concerns about moving forward without the NAB's input? Um, correct.

No, I mean, in an ideal world, right, um, we would have the applicant would have been able to have gone to the NAB. Um uh but for example, I have another uh case where uh council member Eert specifically told my applicant or the city's applicant that I'm working with that um she didn't need to see it at her ward. So um you know there are different situations where uh you know a case does not go to a nab. Um and you know in in situations like that it's out of the hands of the of the applicant to um you know to to make that presentation.

Okay. And in a way in a way this evening we we it sounds like from what I'm hearing and from what I'm seeing that we do have a kind of quasi because we do have concerned residents and neighbors uh near and and you know not too far with us tonight. So uh which I appreciate. So thank you all for coming. It's good father for thought and I'll yield that for now. Commissioner Gonfentini.

Commissioner Gonfentini. Jeff, can you speak to this what appears to be a rope on that bottom portion of the banister or it seems to be a white string. It's strung in that center pole and then it runs along that side and then it runs along. Yes, correct. Can you speak to what that is and what it function as? Functions as I I certainly cannot, Commissioner Gianini, but Thankfully that the applicant probably Thank you.

Uh thank you commissioner. Yeah, there was a initially I thought there is a because a lot of snow falls more than one ft. So make sure the snow doesn't get stuck. So I leave it little blank actually so a little higher on that. Then I put the there is a metal string actually underneath uh to to reduce the gap actually. Uh and the measurements for that bottom railing are code and follow safety and everything because it looks like a very wide space I think. So yeah, my structural engineer is working with the compliance so right now. So

so it is a large spacing that's already there and if you had applied for a permit it would have been handled at that point. So in theory a child or a small animal could fall through there and die? Uh not not really. Okay. So, we don't have any the measurements of that. Uh I believe those are uh uh uh probably I believe there's 8 in 8 in probably most likely 6 to 8 in high. So now it's like 4 in when I put the string on it. U but you plan to adjust that. Uh yes, I did myself. So that's okay. Thank you.

And make sure there's not we don't have any kids or children. We don't have any animals either in our house. So that's uh and and another question is my my side neighbors they're about 20 ft away from my house. So from proper from my you know from my balcony to the but and my rear only the issue the rear sit back is 14 ft. So that's that's what I'm saying. Thank you. Uh

can I add something to that? Uh uh thank you Jeff Foster, associate planner. Uh Commissioner Gonfiantini. Um the building permit process is currently underway. Um so um not only did he have to retroactively seek the uh major deviation, which is by no means a guarantee, right? We never guaranteed that this would be approved, but there is a building permit that's in review now. So, um it it may be something that uh if this is an issue that you may want to consider adding a condition of approval that that gets addressed um during the building permit process. I would think it would be addressed just as a matter of safety to your point. Uh but there is an opportunity through the building permit process to rectify any issues like that.

Uh Commissioner Jock, I'll ask one question. So, we received a number of public comments there. one that I think at least when I'm looking at setback deviations, it's it's I want to hear from fire. So, um and and and we had a question about oh, should we enact a consideration to how we view these? Can you please, Mr. Foster, explain if and how fire is weighing in on these deviation requests?

Thank you, uh Commissioner Jockman. So certainly um uh any entitlement that comes in um fire is automatically on the review uh loop um so fire marshall Beck is currently the reviewer of these applications and he always puts in some kind of a comment um uh that says you know it needs to comply with IFC or you know sprinklers are required or whatever it is right um and for both deviations uh that I have for you tonight. Um, uh, he put in the same standard comment. So, they they do have an opportunity to review and if they do have issues, they they uh certainly let us know and we provide those uh comments uh to the applicants. In this case, there was nothing that fire had uh any concerns about.

Okay. Thank you. I think that's great when granting those requests. That's the uh personnel that I would care to hear from the most uh as it pertains to accessing the VA. So, thank you. Uh I believe Commissioner Visa, you had your hand raised. Yes, sir. Uh thank you. Just had a couple follow-ups just for clarity here. Uh because always trying to see where we can find middle ground here, too, but uh not at the cost, you know, of safety and all the other things that we're discussing tonight. Um Jeff, is there a another balcony that can be used as a comparable nearby that uh has deviated from the norm?

Um not to my knowledge, Commissioner Commissioner Bera. Um okay. I certainly there were I did ask the applicant if there were any other balconies kind of in the area as a comparable. Yeah. Um and he was not able to identify any. Um I am not aware of any specific deviations that were um addressed or that came forward in this area for a balcony. Um Okay. So yeah.

Okay. And so you you got to start somewhere. Um maybe the first the fifth or whatever. But uh on top of that the the staff report sites I think master plan policy 4.3A retention of existing housing stock and N-FN14 birioresistant building materials. I don't know this seems like a stretch for a balcony deviation but can you can you explain the nexus here? Is is policy 43A really about retaining housing stock or is it being used as a catchall? So, can you let's see here. So, uh the language of uh policy 4.3A is encourage ongoing maintenance and promote reinvestment and improvements in established neighborhoods for both owner and renter occupied units. So, um the my my thought was uh that that the applicant was adding to the value of his home. He was in, you know, adding uh uh reinvesting in his property. So, uh and to be frank, Commissioner Bisera, um some sometimes we have to be a little creative when we're when we're trying to find condition I mean, uh master plan policies to line up with it. um some of these very limited uh uh requests in terms of like a major deviation there there's not a whole lot in code that we can specifically or not sorry not in code in the master plan that we can tie on to so that was that was that one and then I would also point out and we can see it on maybe one of the photos here um no you can't but oh you can there the lower right photo that you can see that the that the um uh flooring of the balcony is made of some kind of tile or or you

know nonflammable surface which is why I used that one. So Okay. Okay. Great. No, I I appreciate that. And you know I not everything fits into you know the the written word. It's it's kind of our job to you volley and be on one team here and try to problem solve this. So I appreciate the context. Thanks Jeeoff. Absolutely. Uh, Chair Jockerman, either you or uh, Mr. have any issues with me requesting the additional neighbor letter um, from I think Mr. Skaggs.

Uh, sure. Please make your request. Do we need to put that into the record or where I'm going with this is we have the only reason I'm I'm leaning have been leading that way was the surrounding neighborhoods or the surrounding neighbors all agreeing that this was fine. Um but Mr. Skagg seems to possess or says he possesses a contrary letter to the one that we were provided at the address of 5146 which in our packet we have a letter saying that he approves it. Um, but if we have counter evidence, I'd just like to see it. Can we Jeff? Do you know? I don't think we've received a formal letter contradicting what was No, but the gentleman who spoke earlier said he has one. He can certainly submit that for the record.

Absolutely. Okay. Sir, would you can we see that? We want to put it on here and take a photo if if he has it with him. Yeah, sure. Sorry. A little abnormal. That the applicant gave to the neighbors. Sir, can you please repeat that into the microphone? Oh, I apologize. It's okay. Excuse me. State your name for the record.

This is attached to the uh letter that the applicant gave to his neighbor um Gary and the uh he has a statement in his submission that says his neighbor didn't say anything negative, but wasn't going to sign. It was going to appear here today. He had prior commitments. I'm I mean, that's hearsay, obviously. you know, but um the uh the reason I bring it up is because it shows that the neighbor was not fully truthful. I mean, the applicant was not fully truthful. The um Gary was very negative about this. So, we're stepping out of process here. We've heard the public comment. So, so this is now his letter has now been entered into the public.

Okay, perfect. That's what I need to say. Thank you, Mr. Skax. Thank you. Do we have any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Velto?

Yes, Jeeoff. I have a question for you. Um, I'm looking at the major deviations findings. Uh, finding number three is granting the major deviation does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with other properties. Um, I struggle to think of any major deviation that like isn't kind of a privilege. So, can you help me understand how you view that finding? Uh, Commissioner Velto, that's a that's a great question and I think you're getting at something that it is um an interesting thing. I think if you pay attention to um all of the major deviation recommended findings slides that the staff brings to you, we pretty much all say the same thing that other properties could propose a similar request. And so, you know, that kind of gets to the issue that was brought up during one of the earlier uh items tonight that, you know, could they propose something uh you know, or were they being precluded from proposing something because of the deviation that was being requested? And the answer is no.

So, um I am not aware of a situation um where we have had a uh an application that we would have said, "Oh, geez, this does constitute a special privilege." I'm just not aware of anything like that. So, and I haven't gone through the intellectual exercise to try and come up with something. Um, so yeah, we we pretty much all say that same thing. Thank you. I appreciate it.

And and to follow up on that and just right. So, it's it's in our code. Everybody has the ability to request a major deviation. If if we said, you know, for some reason a balcony is not per but you can request it for a balcony, but your neighbor can't, then that would be a special privilege. That's how staff has kind of looked at those. Understood. Thank you.

Do we have any other questions from the commission? Hearing none, we will now move to deliberations. Um, based on some of the questioning, I may be in the minority on this. Uh, and that's totally okay. Uh, I just want to voice my my thoughts. Um I uh look at the general the major deviation findings and I think that this project does not significantly impact nearby neighbors. The reason for that is twofold. Part one you can already see into the neighbors backyards which means there's not a significant impact of putting up a balcony. Now you may think well you're more likely to sit on a balcony than sit at your window. I am particularly persuaded by the explanation that under existing law, setback law, there is the permission of a five foot set a five- foot deck that could still be built and then allow somebody to sit out there and still look into the neighbor's yard. That's not merely a Juliet balcony you might not never use. It's a little bit more than that and could be substantive and allow for uh the property owner to sit there on a balcony that was 5T in length. So, I don't think there's a significant impact to uh this balcony. Second finding is enhancing overall design or public benefit. It's one or the other. And I do think this subjectively enhances the overall design of the of the property. Uh the third one is the granting the major deviation doesn't constitute a special privilege. This was the one I was concerned about. I think Jeff uh and Mike did an excellent job answering this question that other people have an ability to seek this deviation. Therefore, there's no special privilege. The last finding is granting the deviation is not materially detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. I haven't heard anything saying that it affects public safety or welfare in a way that's materially detrimental. I'm a little bit concerned by uh the inclusion of the letter from 5146 Aspen View

Drive. I will note that on that letter, there's a box at the bottom that says, "Please note that Gary indicated he prefers to attend the meeting in person and does not wish to sign this letter." So, while the recollection by the applicant as to what was said in that meeting may be inconsistent with the statement we've seen, uh I don't think it was represented that there was a signed letter from the property owner at 5146 Aspen View Drive. Uh I liked the idea that came out uh in public comment um that there should be some sort of penalty in the future uh if you don't if you act first and don't and then get caught. Uh that is something I think the city should consider. I don't think that's our perview right now, but that's a generally a very good idea. Uh and something that we should look at because we get a lot of these where people come in and look at it after the fact. Uh I that's my view. I can make the findings, but I respect all of your opinions. And if you can't make the findings, that makes tons of sense to me. Uh the last thing I want to note is I I just want to compliment Mr. Islam. I think your presentation was excellent. Uh we get a lot of folks that come in by themselves and I do think your presentation was very strong. So thank you. Uh, Commissioner Roar Meer.

Yeah, this is an I mean, these things do happen. I I I really respect the idea of a penalty because it does, you know, kind of send the message that build first and permit later is not the approved process by the city of Reno. Um that said, we've seen some far more heinous examples of that, even so much by the city of Reno's landscape service contractor who did a whole development without a building permit. Um, and I don't want to create a Hatfield and McCoy situation with some neighbors by requesting a letter out of someone who wasn't able to attend, but may or may not be supportive of this project. Um, I certainly think it would be too harsh to have to have this structure torn down. Um, so I'm going to sort of grin and bear it for giving approval on this, but I'm really very up I'm very annoyed when I see these sorts of things happen. People do know better. This information is very readily available online. There's a counter that you can talk to planner of the day for free anytime during the day um normal workday. And so this this really isn't acceptable. And um and to give Beth Dory some credit, when you do start deviating from setbacks, it does make fighting fires harder. Um it does make issues of being neighborly that much more challenging. And so these things create added tension unnecessarily. So shame on you for not going through the appropriate process. Let this be a very harsh first lesson.

Uh we we have a few hands raised here. Uh Commissioner Williams.

Yeah. For my part, uh I think Commissioner Roire and Commissioner Belto kind of thing. I I wrote a statement uh before I got here which kind of in in line with the same thing. Um, basically the effect of I want to note my concern that approving asbuilt deviations without meaningful enforcement consequences can erode public confidence in our permitting process and that I hope staff will continue to prioritize proactive code enforcement on these issues. Um, so I think I'm I'm definitely in line if that there should be some sort of consequence for um the motto of um it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Um, for me, there's nothing I value more at my current residence is my perceived um um quiet area. And I can't say as a as a homeowner that um I would enjoy at all um somebody staring over my fence in an elevated position looking into my backyard. Um so I I'm I'm really struggling with this. The only reason I was coming on board was the circle of influence around um this gentleman's house and for them signing off on it. Um but now with the revelation that maybe not everybody's on board and we have some that are even affected at Caddy Corners, I'm I'm kind of pulling back on that. So I understand and I about property rights and being able to build stuff and I would encourage that, but this one seems a little stretch for me. Uh, Commissioner Visera.

Thank you, Chair. Just uh I guess I'll trifect fact that the idea or maybe uh quad the idea at this point of a penalty as well, not necessarily like for for this individual as much as just a general practice. um we have been a little too wild westy and uh everyone knows uh we could use a little bit of revenue then why not uh uh tap into that where it's appropriate. So I was kind of curious if if we're able to condition this tonight so a penalty could be in place for whenever the penalty guidelines are actually ironed out in the future kind of like a a forwardlooking uh condition if you will just think about it. Um, and also, you know, the the balcony is at the rear of the property. It's not visible from any public street. Um, so it does kind of minimize the aesthetic or the streetscape impact. So that's a good thing I suppose. Uh, the major deviation finding number two though I think is pretty weak. It requires that the deviation quote unquote enhance the overall design, operations or public benefits of the project. But a private balcony on a single family home is a personal amenity with no discernable public benefit. So kind of kind of you know um uh struggling with that one. And as I mentioned earlier too, I think that this particular size of a balcony um seems to to blur the line between um uh privacy and whatnot for the residents. So I struggle with that one. to being smaller and the NAB meeting was cancelled. So, no organized neighborhood input was received and we haven't received clarity as to how the NAB input may have shaped staff's analysis or recommendations before us tonight. So,

I'm struggling right in the middle.

Uh, Commissioner Jockman here. So, I have two things. First off, and uh Commissioner Gonfentina, you had suggested possibly a modified motion. So, I'm curious to hear from you as we move through deliberations right now, the um should a motion be made, the the general question about code here, uh when we talk about penalties, at least if I were to go and build a a deck, I would probably go to a contractor. I'm I'm an engineer. That doesn't mean that I get to just go build things, right? And so, um, in this case, I would probably seek, uh, design from a and construction from a contractor who may be the one that's more familiar with the code. So, as an individual, I'm not necessarily going to know. In this case, I would know, but, a general citizen may not know that they need to go get a permit to do said improvements to their house. A contractor would definitely know that. So, um, I'm dealing with a few hypotheticals here. I don't necessarily want to lay uh blame on the in this case the applicant because there could be more parties in play that may have made promises that are not wholly true. Uh so I think it is of value to to to look to a further discussion about this and and perhaps lay some of that information in with how these requests are are are occurring in the first place because there could be other parties involved. I'll leave it at that. Commissioner Bazera uh your hands down. So we do not have any other questions or or do we have any other questions or deliberations from the commission?

I can just make one clarification something that Commissioner Ber has suggested. Neither staff nor this board has the authority to levy penalties or fines um outside of what is already permitted in code.

And this is Jasmine Ma for the record. I I just want to um let the planning commission know that there is a code enforcement and penalty um process in place. What we normally see is in a case like this with you have somebody who has built without a permit, they would get a notice of violation, which is a warning, and then that would escalate. And those escalations come with penalties until they either remove the um structure that was built without a permit or they do what this applicant is doing which is to come in and correct the issue and try to you know con make it conform to code. So I just wanted to throw that in there.

Thank you. of I think just one more further for me, Commissioner Williams, for the record. I think if I was this was a oneman show, what it's not, I would I would suggest that he's put it back to the minimum or maximum that he's allowed u by right uh which seems fairly consistent with um just a broad look at our policies and the and the procedures that the city has in place. Um, I think this uh is a little overreaching uh for my for me.

Could could you make a modified approval to just reduce it or do you not need to because it's require it's already allowed if if you were to reduce it to where it met setbacks, a major deviation would not be required. So, I think it would probably be cleaner just to deny it. Move to deny the request. Commissioner Beth, just one last thought, please.

Sure. Thank you. Um, that's a tough one. Yeah, I I I appreciate the uh public comment. I actually strongly agree with them, and I do think that the uh applicant or the uh the owner of the home uh is doing their best as well. Seems like a good faith, you know, partner player in this trying to solve a problem. Um I think whichever way this body goes this evening for not it hopefully is not a missed opportunity for the city as well to take action right to take this as a PSA opportunity to say like hey if we approve this tonight like hey this was approved but you know for all you out there if you don't know this is what you all need to be doing just just so you know or one way or the other because I don't think that our decision alone tonight one way or the other is gonna have greater of reach if we all work together as a city, you know, amongst our divisions to do the proper PSAs and so forth. But I do appreciate the applicant trying to correct this. I do appreciate all the residents coming in and saying, "Hey, this is not okay." Um, and I hope that this is not a repeated pattern.

Uh, Commissioner, I'm sorry, Mr. Foster, would you like to say something? Were you getting there? If I may, just I've had a couple thoughts that as the conversation has been unfolding here.

Um, first of all, regarding a penalty, that was actually the reason for my attempt at uh drafting a condition that would limit any future impact uh impacts by not allowing any future deviations um for this property. Um I hope that's legal. past uh um so but that was that was kind of my way of saying hey look you know don't do it again and by the way we're not going to allow any additional uh deviations that would increase potential impacts um the other thing that I would point out is that with the hypothetical 5-ft balcony that would not require any kind of deviation that balcony could be extended you know along the width of the house and towards both uh neighbor neighboring properties um even closer to the you know to the sideyard property lines um than the current structure is right so um just is something to consider right as as a thought exercise

commissionerto I'm waffling um I think condition number or finding number two under major deviations is a disjunctive test not a conjunct ive test. So there does not need to be a public benefit. There only needs to be an overall design benefit and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think this looks prettier so I can make finding two. Find number one uh is where I'm kind of stuck. We look at if it significantly impacts the nearby properties. I'm a bit concerned that we're now hearing that there are other property owners that do not support it. And I question whether we would make the same I I would have I would reach the same conclusion that it doesn't significantly impact other property owners nearby if I talked to them or if possibly if there were a NAB meeting things like that especially given what we've seen tonight with this letter. So I'm a little uh concerned about that. So I my views have possibly have softened since discussion and kind of reflecting more on some of the questions that were asked. I believe Commissioner Bisera your hand was the next the one please proceed.

Uh sure. I I guess um really thoughtful takes there Commissioner Belta. Um you know it's really appreciated conversation tonight on this one. It's uh because it seems like it's just one new day or one residence but it definitely cascades across the community. I guess I'm kind of curious and I really earnestly want to know like what what would shape you know what would I mean what would yeah shape your potential outcome if if a different way than you're deciding right now or viewing things right now if you talk to residents tonight or beforehand and correct me if I'm wrong because I think what I heard was that whether you talked to or heard from residents tonight or before, it wouldn't really alter how you view finding number one. And I guess my question is uh why is that or help me understand why is that? Because maybe I'm missing something and I do respect your your take.

So would you like to answer or Yeah, h happy to give my perspective. Sure. Uh and this may be way too big a picture on on a response, but

Okay. what what does it mean to significantly impact nearby properties? Uh I can look at photos and make my assessment based on what I see or I can hear from people and have them explain it to me in a way that effectually makes me feel the way that it impacts them. I have now seen one letter from a neighbor that has a different take on a conversation that happened and it makes me question whether hearing or seeing letters from five neighbors who'd written them themselves and not filled out a form would affect me in a way that would make me think there was a more significant impact. And I that cuts that is at odds with I think my typical view of you generally get to do what you want with your property. So I'm I'm kind of balancing those two concerns. Um, okay. I wouldn't be persuaded.

Yeah. No, no, that helps. I I guess for me, the thing I'm looking at it too is that, you know, it's not just them that we heard from, it's other folks that called in and folks that are there and and whether they wrote it or not, I guess the way I'm looking at it is like they live there, right? It's that lived experience. And so I'm that's what I'm balancing out here and kind of struggling with. But I'll take a step back here. Commissioner Roar Meer.

Thanks. I know this has been an interesting deliberation. I would maybe ask the applicant if the board is feeling like we might get a split or it might even be leaning towards a denial that he asks for a extension before a decision is made towards a denial. um to rally the neighbors, talk to the neighbors a bit more, see if there's some mitigation, additional landscape screening or some negotiations that can take place on the most local level, hyper local scale uh around his yard that would help mask that view, some tall trees, um something and then come back and to us and report back as opposed to go to denial.

Continue. Uh great suggestion, Commissioner Roer. Uh personally, right now I can't tell if this would pass or not. So if we can uh state some more comments on the record to get a so that I can ascertain that before any motion is made and then we'll afford the applicant that opportunity to weigh in. Uh Commissioner Williams.

Yeah. I think lastly, um, in in response to Commissioner Belto's comments, I I'm I'm sitting here wondering too if if your neighbor, your adjacent neighbor built something um, and then came to ask for your permission, would your would your acceptance of that be based on that it's already built versus if he would have come to you and said, "Hey, I want to build a deck and it it's going to be over your property line." Would would that comment be uh different from after the fact? And I know I probably would be a little bit more sensitive personally if somebody had invested the money. It's my neighbor. I want to be cohesive. Um I I don't think I would make the same decision if he came to me without building it. Um I think it would be a little bit more straightforward no for me uh with the privacy concerns. So um I do like all the conversation though.

Uh Commissioner Jockman. So I'll go back to a question of staff. There has been discussion now pertaining to the first finding on major deviations and it sounds as though we've got some comments from public. We did not have the NAB staff obviously made this finding and before you before I ask you the question the way I particularly view that finding is that it is tied to the fourth finding which you know how are we going to impact nearby properties if the fire department is providing support for the deviation that is the fourth finding such that is not materially detrimental to public health you know therefore they're they're saying effectively that this will not impact nearby property in that manner. How does staff view that first finding granting the major deviation will not significantly impact nearby property?

So, um thank you, Commissioner Jockman. So, uh as you can see on the screen, uh my response uh in thinking about that finding was with regard to the land use itself. It's still a single family home. Um, so it was not it was not a deviation or was not a change that that would all of a sudden allow something that didn't exist before and that was perhaps more intensive from a land use perspective. Um, that that's I'll admit a different take than um necessarily being able to see into a neighbor's yard in terms of the impact, right? Um so but the it the the um I was I was looking at the kind of the privacy issue more under finding number four and that's why uh it says several neighbors in support um with regard to the the privacy issue. So I would that that's how I was kind of parceling those two considerations was the one for kind of the intensity of the land use under finding one and then the privacy issue under under finding four. Um could could I could I have done that differently perhaps? So anyway yeah

thank you Mr. Foster. Uh Commissioner Bisera you have your hand raised. Oh yes. I was just going to I guess following your lead and uh all sharing a little bit of where we stand or our thoughts. And so I guess I'll just say uh we can all benefit from breaking bread together a bit more. So I would agree with Commissioner Wormire's recommendation of continuing this matter and seeing if the applicant and their neighbors can try to find some middle ground and report back. So that's a you're suggesting towards a continuence there. Is that correct, Commissioner Visera? Yes. instead of a straight denial or straight whatever. Commissioner Valto,

uh, I know I don't think we can force this to go to the NAB. Can we make a recommendation as part of that to try to get input? Do you think that's worthwhile? I don't want to overstep any bounds. I don't know what we're allowed to do on that regard. I if you did vote to continue this matter, um I would ask that you get concurrence from from the applicant and then that would give the ability to go to the NAB. Uh for me, Commissioner Williams, um I I can't support this project. So, I do like uh Commissioner Roier's suggestion um and would lean towards that if the applicant is willing.

Commissioner Roar, you had your hand raised. Yes, I don't necessarily I mean I think going to that is a nice to do, but I this seems like a very immediate neighbor issue and um so I wouldn't necessarily make it a condition or even a strong ask of the extension if the applicant will is willing to do the extension that they go to the NAB. That is a nice to um but this needs uh immediate adjacency uh remedies in my opinion. Okay. So, we have I will present this then to the applicant. It is it is clear that there is not a majority vote for a motion. So, should a motion be made, it will likely fail. Would you like to request a continuence? We we will not make a motion for a continuence without hearing from you first.

I'm not sure what is the best or I can take it down my balcony. So, there is no problem with that. The only thing I uh spend probably $4,000 my uh design engineer I pay him $4,000. I pay $3,3100 for your deviation fee. So $7,000 plus there is a permit fee. Then there is a review fee I pay. So about let's say 10 grand I'm going to lose it. So that's that's basically Can I offer a clarification that Sure. Um just procedurally, right? There's the there's an approval.

There's a denial um and then there's the potential for a continuence. Um if you want a vote tonight, um a denial can still be appealed to the city council. So if you don't want to continue, uh which so no one is saying that you have to take down the balcony immediately. that the the uh continuence would allow you an opportunity to meet with your neighbors as I understand the consideration. Um yes,

so um th those are the three options. You can you can have a vote that would either lead to a denial or an approval. A denial can be appealed to the count city council. So it doesn't mean it's the end of the line if it's a denial. Okay. And if I could just make one further is there clarification that any decision made by the planning commission could be appealed to the city council. So if if this project was was approved that approval could be appealed by one of your neighbors for example to the city council if they so chose. Um can I show you something? U is there way is is that okay? Yeah. Uh please state your question.

Uh can you show me the the my the slide please? Sorry, this one few seconds probably I think my neighbor the Gary is complaining. So he has a covered patio. So PTO has a post uh I believe the same as my alignments. I'm not sure he has the deviation or not. So it should be less than 20 ft also. So uh let's see.

Yeah, look at here. So that's my neighbor. I can Gary was complaining. So his post so he has the cover video. So I I I believe that's the same rule apply. His post from the property line is not 25. This is the same align to my post. So it should be the same thing. Wait, can I ask a question? Yes, sure. We have three hands raised here. Commissionerto. Okay. Is that the neighbor? Yes. With the letter? Yes. Yes, sir. Commissioner rocks in a glass house. Commissioner Roar Meer.

Oh, yeah. This is getting um perhaps too in the weeds for this level of commission. Um I I would say that it just for your own benefit I as the applicant I think you're very likely to come out of a continuence and trying to work through at least showing the attempt of trying to work through your neighbors an outcome that you'd be pleased with. I can't speak for everyone, but trying to take the time and and going and speaking to them and maybe looking at a couple of mitigations, like I said, some added landscaping or screening in some way, I think would bode very well for you. So, um I know you got up initially and said, "Oh, you know, I've invested $7,000." That to me is quite a substantial investment and um I don't want to see you lose that. That is my personal opinion. I can't speak for others. Um, but I'd strongly encourage you to try to work things out and then come back to us.

Definitely. Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, I'll try my best. What is what is work for the best situation? So, that's that's different.

Sure, Commissioner M for the record. I'll just echo Commissioner's sentiments there, sir. like um it's it's obvious you mean well and it's just you know kind of slipped through the cracks and and as a bigger bigger picture bigger vision you know as a city we'll get things a little bit ironed out better as some of the residents pointed out and we agree with them and so I hope that uh you're able to find a solution with the neighbors here and and uh my personal take too is that I I hope that a continuous a continuence is embraced and you could find that solution with with your your your immediate neighbors.

Uh I this is Commissioner Jockman. I would like to ask one question of legal here. So we have a major deviation. We only have six. What would be needed to pass a motion? Would it still be it would be four votes? Correct. For this simple majority that's correct. Thank you. Do we have any other any other comments from the commission?

Hearing none, I'll just add myself here, Commissioner Jockman. I I think that the findings as presented here, they're adequate for me. It sounds like I'm deviating from a lot of the folks on this commission on this, but I can see some precedent in the nearby area. I I I hear some of the comments about noise and complaints, but but uh a patio doesn't make noise. Noise is made by events, and that's not the same as granting a setback deviation. So, when I look at a setback deviation, my focus is primarily on that fourth finding, which is whether or not it's detrimental to public health. And that comes from the fire department for how I interpret that. So, that's where I'm sitting. Um just wanted to share that. Commissioner Bisera.

Sure. I I guess I was just I I heard from the gentleman, the applicant, that he was open to a continuence. Is that correct, sir? Uh yes. Okay. So, yes, Commissioner. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Great. So, if that is the case, uh and and Jasmine, I'm looking to you as our legal counsel here. Um, is it okay if I make a motion in accordance to that to continue the matter? Yes, you can make a motion to continue the matter. Just I would recommend that it be done to a date certain.

Okay. Sure. What Jeff or sir or Jasmine, do you have any date certain parameters that you'd like to entertain or the rest of the body? So, we're not looking at this a year from now, but you know, sometime soon. Um yeah, so just a second please. So uh we if you would like we can continue it to a date certain to a specific planning commission hearing. So that way there's a specified time and we don't have to go through the process of renoticing. I see. So um it would be preferable, it's generally preferable to select a specific date for the next opportunity to bring this back to the commission.

I see. Um, so we would want to do a time that gives you enough time to meet with the neighbors to work with staff. So it wouldn't be two weeks from when the next one is. If I could make a suggestion, um, because this is a code compliance issue, we don't want to drag it out forever, so to speak. Um, I think the April 15th um, planning commission me, so essentially a month would be would be appropriate. Yes, sir. Commissioner Valto,

it it'd be very helpful for me if at the next meeting you could have a photo of 5146 that shows how far that patio awning, whatever it is, extends out from its property compared to yours. Yes, sir. I'm just curious about that. But thank you. Sure. Sure. I'll definitely But currently, yes. My my my post and his post are the same align. If you if you look at the other picture actually, so you had the almost But I'll definitely do that. Thank you. Okay. So, Commissioner Visera, please proceed.

Sure. Just just before I say it though, just to be clear, we're aiming for April 15th as the date certain uh return period. That's correct. Okay, great. So in the matter commissioner Ber for the record in the matter LDC26-000049 asking you drive mirror act deviation I move to continue this matter until April 15 2026. Commissioner Valto second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on this item hearing? None. All those in favor say I. I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. That concludes this item for this meeting. We have one more hearing. Let's take a five minute break and reconvene. The time is 8:26. We will reconvene at 8:31. Please return by then. We've got a few minutes. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Do we have Mr. Foster to start our next item? I'll go grab him. Okay.

Yeah. Mr. Foster, are you ready to proceed if we do? Okay, this one's even smaller. What's that? This one's even smaller. Good luck. We will restart the planning commission meeting our where we left off. We are now entering item C5, staff report for possible action. Case number LDC26-000050. This is the Manzanita homeside setback deviation. Mr. Foster.

All right. Jeff Foster, associate planner. For the record, we've already heard the case number and the name. Um, okay. Project site is about 27 acres. Uh it's located on the north side of Manzanita Lane about 295 feet east of Lakeside Drive uh near Manzanita Park. It's currently developed with a single family home and the major the request is a major deviation to reduce the required sideyard setback from 5T to 2 and 1/2 ft. Zooming in again single family residences on all sides and again the key issue is compatibility. the master plan land use a single family neighborhood. And I did want to point out and highlighted one of the master plan policies um that I found to be of particular importance for this one is 7.7B tree installation retention and replacement and you'll see why here in a minute. The zoning district is single family uh five units per acre. So some background uh this is a single family home that was built in 1966. The project proposes a new 252 ft bedroom addition on the north side in the rear yard and that's shown in the turquoise circle oval and then a 260 uh square foot bedroom playroom addition on the west side in the sideyard and that's shown in the orang-ish oval. Um, splitting the total addition area between the rear and side yards is more effective from the standpoint of building and home efficiency in this particular case. And this configuration uh minimizes impacts to the site, including preserving two mature shade trees in the rear yard and preserves usable rear yard open space. The western addition would result in approximately 60 square ft within the 5-ft sideyard setback. and that's in the uh uh green highlighted area on the left side. And staff is recommending condition number five uh to address a public utility easement that corresponds to the same 2 and 1/2 ft offset that is being proposed

under the major deviation regarding compatibility with surrounding uses. The surrounding parcels are developed with similar single family homes. the sideyard addition uh which is set back uh sorry side and rear yard uh areas function as private open space and are generally appropriate locations for residential additions. the sideyard edition which is set back approximately 50 feet from the street and that's in this area uh as you can see on the uh in the in the oval uh would be partially screened by a large deciduous tree that is close to the south side of the addition as well as a a front yard evergreen tree that is close to the street as you can see in the photo. The proposal does not compromise the health, safety or welfare of the adjacent property owners and in fact the neighbor to the west uh as you can see in the left side of the picture here has provided a letter of support and staff is recommending condition number five for the allowable days and hours of construction um because this this addition has not been built um and uh so to minimize the impacts during construction on the neighboring residential uses. The major deviation recommended findings are on the screen. Staff believes that all of the findings can be made. Uh here's the recommended motion and the applicant is here and will also be making a presentation.

Please state your name for the record.

Hello, my name is Gabriel Olsen. I uh appreciate uh being uh being here and thank you all for all your time and uh all the great work that you do for our community. Um, this is I'm gonna uh I was at the NAB last night. Um, I was supposed to be at our NAB a month ago, but the snowstorm moved it back. Um, and so, uh, me and my family attended, um, the NAB last night. I did not bring my family to this meeting, thankfully, because they would have been quite a distraction over the last two and a half hours. Um, this is our home. Uh, it was our first home. Uh, we, uh, purchased it at the end of 2019 and moved in right before CO in 2020. The cool thing about it, my wife grew up two homes down. Um, so she grew up on 935 Manzanita and so when this came on the market, um, it was a wonderful opportunity for her and her family for us to be able to raise our family so close. Um, they the the family had since had to sell that home um, due to financial issues. So, it was kind of a a cool kind of uh, re uh rebirth into the community. Um, this is our backyard. These are the two trees that uh Jeff uh or Mr. Foster was describing. Um it's really nice for our beagle um to enjoy that open space. Um and that's the deck that you see a little bit. Um it's just kind of blurred by the yellow that came up at the NAB last night. Um of kind of how that So when we were looking at an addition um uh it was challenging because we could come off that north uh east section more, but it would kind of cut that that open space there um in half. Um uh where it would really create a wing of the house as well uh as uh with these two small kiddos. um it would be challenging on who would go in the wing of the house away from everybody else. So um where you see now is that northwest um that that kind of structure which is exactly

where we would have to do the addition. Um in that photo on the right behind my wife is where we are doing that smaller addition but it stops well before that photo to allow that open space back there um while still being able to create the the four and four um from a a bedroom bathroom. um uh uh assembly that we are looking to achieve. Um we actually didn't even we we were kind of really talking about this had kind of moved on thought that we might have to look for another home in the community and sell this home. Um and then um we were contemplating this and we realized that this side space here that's behind those two fences that's pictured here um is completely um unused space except for me putting pine cones there to hide them from my beagle. Um and so discussed with our builder um what we could do. Um the idea is this uh this chimney um we chose not to fix it when we bought the home. there's issues with it and cracks in it. So, we actually don't use that chimney at all. And so, the idea was to remove the chimney and then create enough space where we can create a hallway through the home and then have um have those two rooms there um effectively using our space better um but needing to get a major deviation. Now, I recognize um tonight uh that people feel very strongly about ma major deviations. Um I I I do want to point out a couple of things. one. It's not like uh major deviations are free. Um not to I I think it's a great process. I've really enjoyed my time with uh Mr. Foster. It's made us think critically about what we're doing. Um and and I'll get into that in a second, but it is a it is more than $3,000 um to apply for a major deviation. And if you're denied, you don't get that money back. Again, not that's not in a threatening way at all. just saying I I think there's there's been a little bit of perception tonight that people can just kind of come in

here and get major deviations like there's a lot their lollipops. There's a lot of work involved to it. Um, additionally, we did um to to Beth's point and Beth, good to see you again. Um, we saw each other at the NAB last night. Um, uh, we did a license survey. Um, so this here um that's noted is from our licensed survey that we did where we actually found that to Beth's point um our survey uh is about um like 6 in sorry 6 in uh beyond the fence towards that carport um on the other side. Um now I also want to note that my neighbor uh my neighbor's permission was contextual in an email. I didn't sign him something where he had to mark yes or no. Um, we've had a great relationship even though um that he you guys might not have had a similar meeting about that carport. Now, I'm not here to say just because he did it I should get it. I definitely don't want to create a adversarial relationship in my neighborhood and I want to respect all my neighbors input. Um, and I feel terrible for Beth's uh experience that she had. um she clearly did not approve of what her neighbor had done and that ending in a a fire like that um is is tragic and and I feel terrible um for her. Definitely got um the neighbors approval on this was surveyed um and from a safety aspect uh fire signed off of it. The other thing from a safety perspective, Manzanita Lane, people drive really fast down that road unfortunately. Um, and so if we cut off that backyard, the kids would I I'd really hate to have my kids in the in the front yard as much from a safety um perspective. Um, I I think to Grace's point earlier, it is a very individualized review. There's a utility tract uh that we became aware of um that is 5T right on that property line that's 2 and 1/2 ft. So, we changed

the design of our home to a gable roof on that side where there wouldn't be an eve to comply with that um utility easement um which we actually are super excited about in terms of the design um of the home. But I think it is that point where this is a very individualized review and a lot of time and effort um from the city planners um as well as ourselves. And then I think the the last thing that I would say is it's come up and uh Commissioner Williams, you you had a great point of you know, we're really testing it tonight. I feel like I'm testing it, especially after um the the prior um uh item. Um and when would we say no? I I think my my challenge would be um I get it's a hot button, but if we have been handing these out left and right as described, if we just at some point stop them completely, I would almost argue that I would that I I would be subject to a special privilege where the all these other people had the privilege of a fair consideration and I'm we're not being considered because of other deviations in the community that might not have been as contextual um or applicable to their Cool. Here for questions.

Thank you. We'll now go to disclosures and then to questions from the commission. Uh Commissioner Velto, uh familiar with the area. Commissioner Gianini read and reviewed materials familiar with the area. Uh Commissioner Jockman, same. Commissioner Williams, same. Commissioner Beris, same. Commissioner Rory Meyer, same. And public comment, Mr. Clerk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have one person registered for inperson public comment. Donna Keats. Donna, please approach the podium. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. While Donna approaches, if there's anyone on Zoom who'd like to give comment on this item, please raise your hand.

Again, it's Donna Keith. Boy, that was a long time because I missed the general public comment this sit through all of this. I wanted to um tell I'm on the W 2 NAB. This was presented last night. I didn't get my my NAB review form written and sent until like quarter to 5. So I didn't know if you got it or not. So I wanted to come here and give you the NAB impressions which were positive. So the things hope we didn't scare you too much on this last bit. The point is he already built his and you haven't. And so he's made we you know we grilled him. They've done a lot of work. I I mean there a lot of houses in that area do have that L-shaped extension like he said he didn't want to do when they expanded their houses and they are this L-shaped because that was the 70s thing and that's just what they like. But I think that in view of what his um he's trying to accomplish and where he is on moving into the setback given that his neighbors kind of buted right up there personally I'd be sort of worried about fire because now they're both encroaching and you really can't get in there at all. But, you know, fire department didn't make a comment. So, anyway, it was a positive, I thought, from the NAB last night. He got a lot of questions. He explained everything about and they've done a lot of work. They've been working pretty proactively with Jeff to um make sure that they have the easements and they've taken care of all that stuff. And so, in case you didn't get my NAB comments, I came here to convey that to you. So, I just signed up for everything as long as I was here. So, anyway, thank you very much. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have anyone else registered to give in person or online public comment. Do we have any requests to speak in chambers at this time? Seeing none, we will close public comment. And now we will move to questions from the commission. Uh, Commissioner Williams, I don't have a question, but I just want to say, Donna, um, thank you for coming here. That dedication to provide your ward ward report um is pretty impressive and it really is helpful. So, I just want to say thank you for that dedication and I think that's the first in my time. So, it's much appreciated. Commissioner Bisera.

Uh, great. Uh, thank you. Just a couple of quick questions, I believe. Um, and maybe this is uh for the applicant, Mr. Olsson or staff. Um, was there any direct outreach conducted to the immediate adjacent western neighbor who I think is whose property line is probably affected by that reduce setback beyond the standard courtesy notice and and was the support letter from that that specific western neighbor or a different neighbor?

Uh, yes. So, uh, I spoke with the western neighbor, um, and, uh, emailed him the plans and then the, uh, him the approval of that is actually contextual in that email chain. So, uh, you can see the, um, the initial just kind of the whole conversation. I didn't want to allude to any any situation kind of like the past item where it was we got approval, but how sincere was that approval? You can see the whole email chain and that was forward to uh, to Mr. roster and should be in the report.

Okay, great. Thanks, Mr. Olsson. And I'll say that uh you getting a uh nod of approval from uh Miss Donna Keats is is is no easy feat. The bar is pretty high, so kudos there. Um no, it's a good thing. And uh again, question for Jeff uh and maybe for you, Mr. Olsson. Condition two gives gives you, you know, as the applicant 18 months to pull a building permit. Uh but given that it's a pretty small residential addition, uh have you guys considered just a shorter time frame to ensure the deviation doesn't sit as an unused entitlement? So, Commissioner Bisera, are you asking if um if the building permit has already been submitted?

No, I'm asking like if uh I think the condition is giving Mr. son and his family 18 months, right, to to essentially do a building permit. But since it seems and it's not a make it or break for me by any stretch, I'm just kind of curious like is is that too much time or does it make sense to kind of bring it down a little bit? Uh or is that just a standard that that Yeah. So you're Yeah. So for everyone that's condition number two is that the building permit shall be applied for within 18 months. That's the standard for a major deviation. Um, and in fact, you've already applied, correct? Are you

We're waiting on structural um engineering to put the building permit in. Um, and that we're the the building permit. Uh, this is Gabriel Wilson for the record. Again, uh, the the building permit is imminent. U, we're planning to hopefully submit that later this week. Um, given um that we had this meeting this evening, um, and that, uh, being denied the major deviation would significantly change the permit itself. we decided to just hold off. But um uh Mr. Foster was very great about letting us know we could do that we could submit the permit and go through this pro uh project concurrently.

Okay, great. Great. And then just one last one I guess uh you know at a 2 and 1/2t setback um you'll have some future maintenance upon you especially on that that west wall like painting repairs, gutter work and all that. And it'll require access though from a pretty narrow strip. Have you considered how you'll maintain that wall over time without relying on a neighbor's property for access? Yeah, I mentioned that because it's been an issue with others in in the region.

Yeah, I think um that it's a great point. Um I think that um our neighbor uh and us have to work together um just with the structure of that carport. um it is relatively tight quarters over there to start with. And so um I think with the survey and us really being able to work together um on that area that uh that we will um address those challenges together as neighbors. Um hopefully with it being a brand new structure the at least the siding and and the painting and things like that um that would be well well down the road would be my my hope if if we hired the right builder.

Well, Mr. Carlson, that's kind of a music to my ears cuz in in a way we talked about, you know, neighbors breaking the bread in an earlier case tonight and uh it gives me hope. It stills confidence that uh we can uh solve problems at that hyper local level as Commissioner Roer also mentioned. So, thank you. Thank you. Absolutely. Any other questions from the commission? Seeing none, we will move to deliberations or entertain a motion should one be made. Commissioner Valto ready to make a motion. Please proceed.

In the matter of case number LDC26-000050, uh, based upon compliance the applicable findings, I move to approve the major deviations subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Goni second. Okay. First from Velto, second from Gonfentini. All in favor say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C5. We will now move on to business items. D1, recommendation to city council for appointment one appointment to the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Commission. Do we have any nominations to

Mr. Chair, before we move into nominations, we do have a public comment on this item? Uh, yes, public comment. Donna Keats,

please proceed. Like I said, I had to sit here all night, so I signed up for everything. So anyway, um I am would like to speak in support of Manny as the appointee for this position. He's served relentlessly for almost two years as an unofficial um what do you call him alternate when Alex didn't show and I think he did a great job. I've seen him perform a lot. He's well considered on all these things. He's very well verssed. I think regional planning deserves the most experienced people on this board that we can have because it's a complicated job. Um, no slide on you, but you know, it's a complicated job and it requires a bigger picture history and the longer that people have been on planning commission, they're more suited to go to regional. So for me personally, and I probably speak for I'm guessing 2530 other people I've conversed with this about feel really strongly that the longest tenur planning commissioners should be the ones to pass forward to regional because they have the most useful experience. And in Manny's case, he has actually participated in regional in so many meetings and done such a great job and he's always really wellprepared. He doesn't seem to have a personal agenda that gets in his way. He's pretty balanced about his evaluation. He's always well informed about the topics before they come to the meeting. He doesn't wait to hear the staff reports. He's got all the information in hand and I think he would make a fine appointee and so I'm speaking wishing that you would appoint him. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, we also have Beth Story online. Beth, you should be able to unmute. Please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Beth, if you are Yes, we can hear you.

I have to echo what Donna said about Man Manny. I've I'm a tough customer and he is one of the kindest, most informed, most approachable uh planning commissioners I've ever dealt with. And so I enthusiastically approve Manny and I agree with Donna. I think Donna said thank you. Thank you Beth. Mr. Chair, I don't have anyone else registered to give public comment on this item. Uh Commissioner Valto, you had

Yeah. I'd like to nominate Commissioner Williams for the regional planning commission appointment. Commissioner Gpantini. A second. We have a motion and a second. Uh, Mr. Clerk, would you like to conduct a roll call vote for this, please? Can do. Chair Jockerman. I Williams. I Bera. Is there going to be discussion after this by chance? or or did we skip further discussion after public comment? Uh you're welcome to discuss uh explain your vote.

Yes.

Oh, sure. I guess I'll just uh uh echo some remarks that uh I was unexpectedly surprised to hear and I appreciate from the broader community. So, thank you. And I guess I'll just kind of say that you know I have served on this commission for nearly three years and for a significant portion of that time also served as a alternate on the regional planning commission with that consistent reliable participation that was mentioned earlier and my approach has been steady and independent and grounded in adopted plan subjective findings and full context with a focus on collaboration across jurisdictions and stakeholders. I submitted a full nomination letter which is already part of the planning commission record from February 4th and I would respectfully ask that it be included in the materials transmitted to city council for their consideration this time as it was omitted previously and this will ensure that the full record allows the items support a transparent informed appointment process. And in that same spirit of transparency, I do want to flag an issue that I believe warrants clarification before this body takes action one way or the other. There's been some discussion suggesting this role may be a paid position. That has not been my understanding, nor has it ever been formally communicated to this body or to me. And in 3 years of serving as a consistent alternative alternate, I've never been paid or received compensation. So I think it would be prudent for staff to clarify this point for both the commission and the public and more broadly to provide a brief overview the roles and responsibilities and expectations so that everyone is fully informed before a recommendation is made. Thank you.

Legal, are we allowed to break from the motion since we're in the middle of a roll call? No. So carry on with the roll call vote. Mr. Chair, why did we call for a roll call without discussion? Correct. I'll defer to legal on this one. Should we should we go back to discussion after the second? We're in the middle of a roll call vote.

You're supposed to for reconsideration. You could either uh I guess withdraw the motion and deliberate and then call for the roll call or you can continue with the roll call vote whichever you prefer. I challenge this. We never had a discussion. Therefore, we cannot go back to a discussion. It was inappropriate to go right to a roll call vote. I think a discussion would be very helpful.

So, in order to go back to discussion, what do I need to state on the record? I'm looking at the city attorney here. Just make a motion to move into discussion and then do the roll call vote. That's all I'm going to do. We will halt the roll call vote, Mr. Clerk. And I cannot make the motion, so we need a motion for discussion. Commissioner Alto move for discussion. Commissioner Gintini second. We have a motion and a second for discussion. All in favor say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries unanimously. Discussion. Uh, Commissioner.

Commissioner Basser. Oh, well, I I actually, if you don't mind, I do want to I Yeah, I just want to, you know, respectfully insist though that I I did have a question within my statement there that I think warrants to be addressed by the appropriate staff or person in in chambers about compensation, roles, and responsibilities because again, in my three years, it's never been highlighted directly or in presentation and I've received compensation as an alternate.

I speaking from my experience, well, there is compensation. I believe it's $80 a meeting. I believe when I was an alternate during my first few years on the commission, I did receive compensation and I would expect that alternates do receive compensation. I That's my impression.

Okay. I have never just just so the record states like and again it's just there's this uh uncertainty or innuendo at times and uh so if if you've received it and I have not received it I'm not sure why and that's not really the issue as much as the maybe the impression that sometimes is given as to why we're moving forward with this or not but so there's disagreement I I'm struggling to understand the relevance of to the recommendation that's uh before us on the agenda. Uh but yeah, I can speak to that. I may I Meer?

Yes. The challenge uh the issue was brought to my attention a peculiary interest and that there would be payment for regional planning commission um service. And to my knowledge, yes, we receive $80 for the public who's interested per meeting that we attend at the city of Reno. In my years of service at TMRPA as a planning commissioner, I have not ever received payment. Now, my fellow commissioner, whose vote is before us, has gone out of his way to make accusations. Now I wish to in before I vote understand if there is a pecunary interest in people I might support for the position.

Just just to clarify for the record this is Mike really commissioners are paid by the city of Reno. There is no additional compensation for being a regional planning commissioner.

Can I can I wait on that? Uh you do get paid $80 a meeting for every meeting you attend. If you attend two planning commission meetings a month, you receive $160. If you attend two planning commission meetings a month and a regional meeting, you receive $240. That money is paid for by the city of Reno. I can confirm this because the first time I met with Jeremy uh after becoming appointed to the regional planning commission, we met in his office, he told me, "Every meeting you come to, you get $80. It's paid for by the city of Reno." So, the payment is not made by regional. It is made by the city of Reno, but it is made for every meeting you attend, including regional. So the question of whether there's a pecuniary interest, there is a added benefit of getting to attend more meetings as a result of being on the regional commission, which results in additional payments to planning commissioners.

Okay. I I think we're getting off of the agenda item that's before us. Do we have any other discussion pertaining to the agenda item that is before us? Yes. And and that being that um there was nomination Mr. Commissioner Basera self-nominated himself that isn't being considered in light of consideration of Commissioner Williams. Now Commissioner Williams has and its record put forth letters and documentation that are disparaging and accusational. There is no way that that which should be supported at the complex decisionm of a regional planning commissioner. He does not have the experience nor the ability that he's shown to have the capability to make these kinds of decisions. So that leaves one other person at this time to be considered. Now if there's a pecunary interest and that precludes me that I have to abstain from voting then I need to know that and that is why this issue came up. Commissioner Velta, would you like to make a motion? Uh,

I would like to make a discussion. I guess that' be a comment. Uh, I think Commissioner Williams has done an excellent job on this commission. I think he has been fair and impartial when he is voting on projects. I think this commission has been concerned at some of the issues we've seen with fellow commissioners and that disclosures were not made when we think they are appropriate. There's been an allegation of disparagement. I think these words matter and we're talking about disparagement. There need to be things that are, in my view, false or misleading. And I don't think anything Mr. or Commissioner Williams has said in my opinion is false or misleading. With that said, if there's a motion and a second for Commissioner Bisera, the board can entertain a motion. I have only heard a motion. I have not heard a second. So, if anyone would like to make a second, perhaps we can take a vote. But I've only heard a motion.

This is Commissioner Bisera for the record. I'd also like to say because Commissioner Belton, you mentioned that uh you made a semi-subjective remark there about disclosures. I I'll just say for the record that uh our own legal has said that there was no additional disclosures needed and everything was a-okay. And I'm paraphrasing. So while you may disagree with the approach on disclosures, our own legal counsel is is fine with it. Chair, may I respond? So this is Jasmine Ma for the record. We're getting a little far from the agenda item and delving into

Thank you. So the purpose of the city of Reno planning commission is to advise the city council on long-term physical development of the city. This is available right on the website. I think we should stick to the agenda item that's before us. This has been brought to us by staff. City council can debate this in further length. They are the ones with the ultimate authority on this agenda item. We're just making a recommendation like we did previously with with uh C3. So, let's let's let's state our comments on the record because similar to that item, it's more important than our actual vote as it comes to the authority for this item on our agenda.

Yes. Thank you. And I think that's why we were making these remarks because it it it helps and and and it when it seems like the commissioner bizarre for the record it seems like the last few regional appointment recommendations there's been this eagerness to make a motion and recommendation without discussion and I don't think that's by mere chance and so it's important to have these conversations and that's why I appreciated making additional remarks and I again appreciate the addition remarks from the broader community in support which was to my surprise and thank you and I'm proud to serve all of you.

Chair, may I make a minor comment very brief and then I assure you I will defer to your judgment. Uh I would only note that specific Nevada Commission on Ethics opinions that I think should be used should be considered is the 1999 Nevada Commission on Ethics Ethics Opinion number 98-70 and the Nevada Commission on Ethics opinion number 0019 from the year 2000. I don't know if those have been considered when evaluating the potential for a conflict. Those are two ethics opinions that deal with the non-disclosure or one that deals with the non-disclosure of a fiance relationship and the other dealing with abstension related to a fiance relationship when there is a fiance who was on a public board. Those are two opinions that I think are very poignant and relevant and I'm not quite sure if those two have been viewed or assessed by legal. No one is voting on a fiance relation. Nobody here is not seconded or endorsing a fiance relationship. Therefore, that case has not been applied to this position.

So, I think we have comments from the commission that are not going to come to agreement. So, I I think we should make a motion and proceed with that. I, Commissioner Ber, I move to continue this matter uh to a time certain period of 30 days and perhaps give staff and council time to make a recommendation on how best to proceed with this. or they can decide as they ultimately will and take into consideration all of the remarks that have been made this evening both by the at the dis and within the public. So we have a motion. Do we have a second?

I move to postpone until April 15th. That's a second. Understood. So we have a motion and a second. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Commissioner Bisera is the mover. You are an I. Jacquman. Nay. Gonantini. No. Commissioner Roier is the seconder. You are an I.T.O. No. Williams. No. Mr. Chair, the motion fails. Do we have any other motions to entertain from the commission? Commissioner Velto, I move to nominate Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Gonpentini. I second.

We have a motion and a second. We have already had extensive discussion on this legal. Do I need to open this back up for discussion? We have a motion and a second. Mr. Clerk, please conduct a roll call vote on this matter. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Can you please repeat the mover and the seconder? We have a motion from Commissioner Valto. We have a second from Commissioner Confantini. This is a recommendation for uh Commissioner Williams. Please conduct a roll call vote. Sherman I. Williams I Bera no. Gonfontini

I Roer. Um it is an absolute no and I recognize that the people at the dis will absolutely approve them regardless of public comment. Valto. Yes. Mr. Chair, the motion passes.

That concludes item D1. We now move on to item E. Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. We have not had a regional planning commission meeting since the last one. We did have a subcommittee meeting. At that uh uh at that meeting, we heard an update regarding planning efforts from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony uh presented by Candace Stoell. That's the RSIC planning director. We also uh reviewed regional planning governing board comments uh that were directed towards the subcommittee and that was from their February 12th meeting. That concludes the update from the TM the from the regional planning commission MI uh staff item F future agenda items. Anything to report for future agenda items?

Nothing this evening. Mr. Clerk, item G, public comment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have public comment registered for our closing public comment period. I'm actually Donna. I'm going to start with Sue Morrison. Sue, please approach the podium. State your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. While Sue is approaching, if there's anyone who'd like to give public comment online, please use the raise hand feature. Sue, whenever you're ready. She's back. See, I'm more confident now. Um, first of all, I want to thank you guys for stuff like this. I know this one's probably not yours, but just allowing regular old citizens to be able to participate in this sort of thing. Um, I am going back to 003, our good friends that want to build that big project on Clear Acre in Scottsdale. Um, my first concern or an an additional concern is what they're calling multi-use zoning. They're really not specific. There's they mentioned a park, which is great. Um, however, uh, this could also mean some commercial use. I don't know if they want to throw another gas station on the corner or what they're thinking. They're really not specific and it bothers me. Um, so I have concerns about that. And the other thing, uh, they've mentioned, uh, Truckucky Meadows Community College quite a bit. They haven't mentioned the high school zoning, which is HUG. And HUG is a brand new big, beautiful school with no sidewalk anywhere. All of those kids are going to have to walk to and from school from Clearacre all the way over to I guess it's El Rancho Sullivan in that area. There's no sidewalks for those kids. It's a big concern. It's a big concern for me. It's a big concern for one of my very good friends whose daughter is now being homeschooled. their their address is uh Scottsdale up right behind this project because that child 17-year-old girl would have to walk to and from school.

The mom has chosen to homeschool. And I think when you guys are looking at this planning thing, I would really like to see you look at the big picture, the broader picture than just traffic. And and this again does go back to traffic. because, you know, their 16-year-old friends are peeling out through those roundabouts getting out of that high school and other kids are just, you know, trying to walk and live their life. And the other thing is until we change daylight savings time to permanent, the kids are also walking home in the dark from that school. And I just hope it's something that you will consider. And uh $80 a day isn't enough for what you guys put up with. I hope y'all will break some bread together after this meeting. Thank you. you.

Thank you. And thank you for keeping your comments to our purpose here as the planning commission. I really appreciate that, Mr. Clerk. Up next, we have Donna Keats. Donna, please approach the podium. State your name for the record. You will be afforded three minutes.

Wow. Okay, I made it to the end. Um, I almost can't think of anything to say to you guys. You I am so incredibly disappointed by your performance about this regional appointee. The last time you did this, a month ago, whenever it was, when Tina and Christina got appointed and Christina refused at council, whatever that date was, I was appalled by the way that went. Absolutely appalled in this business of let me make a motion before there's any moment. I mean, I've seen it happen at council, too. It doesn't always happen here. I'll just make a motion so licickety split fast that the person on the board who's trying to make a comment doesn't even get to make a comment. That's rude. It's wrong. It's a disservice to the public. It's a disservice to the whole idea of the planning commission. And I was so upset by your last performance on this regional planning. I I'm going to say the BL word because that's what it was. It was embarrassing. It was an embarrassment to the city and I was so upset by that I almost went to a council meeting to tell them what I thought. But then of course I realized, oh, of course you guys already know this because you're like feeding it. And I am just really disappointed for what it's worth. Maybe nothing. But you're turning off so many citizens who really want to be active, who really want to get behind their people who are representing them, really want to get to regional, really want to have cooperative planning, cooperative work with council, planning commissioners, and thank you for listening. Um, but you don't, you're losing us. I mean, it's so hard for me to get myself to come to these meetings to even speak because I'm so certain that whatever I have to say makes no difference anymore. Keeping in mind, I've been doing this for 25 years and somebody with ethics complaints doesn't even get nailed yet. You don't want to get into this because of people dating. Why is it your business? Blow it off. Grow up. Do something else, right? Just stop it. You're acting like children.

Thank you very much. Felt like I needed to slam you because this was not quite as offensive as the last one, but the last one, oh my god. It's good thing I wasn't here in person because that was so horrifying to me. and everybody who knew about it how you handled that. So anyway, I don't know. There's nothing else I can say in 45 seconds. I do appreciate your service. I hope you don't get so upset with me that you won't listen to anything I might have to say that could be useful, although I realize you might, but um I just needed to slam you because this was really disgusting. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have anyone else registered for closing public comment. We don't have anyone online who's indicated they'd like to speak. Item H is for adjourn. Adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjurnn? Commissioner Gentini. Motion to adjurnn.

Second. Motion and second. All in favor say I. I. I. Meeting adjourned.

Why not? Why not? Seems like a You think I'm think