Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

General public comment. I see none. I will close. General public comment. Commissioners, can I get an approval for the agenda? Mr. Chair, I move to approve the agenda as amended. I'll second. All right. We got a move by Commissioner Kramer and a second by Commissioner Pritzos. Please vote. It's moving.

There it goes. There we go. It's getting there. Commissioner Reid. All right, it passes unanimously. All right, may I get an approval for See, go back for the minutes. All right. Okay, you got to read it.

Sorry. I just got back from I move to approve the minutes of the planning commission study session held on Monday, June 16, 2025 in the planning commission meeting held Wednesday, June 18th.

Second. All right, we got a move by Commissioner Rodriguez Elkins, a second by Commissioner Ritzos. Please vote. Commissioner Reid. All right, that passes unanimously. All right, we'll move on to public hearing number one, PCN25-00008MPA25-00002. Uh, good evening, Chair Austin, members of the planning commission. For the record, Kobe Glano, planner with the city of Sparks. Uh, today we have two requests. A comprehensive plan amendment reszoning for a site located at 2301 Sparks Boulevard. Uh, Mr. Chair, if it's okay with you, I'll cover both these items in one presentation like I did on Tuesday. Um, but it should be noted that two public hearings must be held and each requires a separate motion. On this slide, you can see the subject site located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sparks Boulevard, No Callahan Drive. The subject site is 79 acres and was developed with a commercial building in 1987, subject to a special use permit that allowed for the operation of a child care facility for the past 38 years. A mix of single family, middle density residential and commercial uses surround the subject site. To the north across Sparks Boulevard are single family homes and multif family apartments. Further north is Bearing Village Shopping Center developed with a grocery store, drive-through restaurants, and retail uses. To the south are single family homes in Van Meter Park. And single family residences are also located to

the east and west. The first request for 2301 Sparks Boulevard is a comprehensive plan amendment request that would change the land use designation from intermediate density residential for R to commercial. The current intermediate density residential uh comprehensive plan land use designation supports a range of uses including single family detached zero lot line single family residences, open space and trail systems, schools, religious institutions, private recreation facilities and public facilities. The proposed commercial land use designation supports a wide range of commercial, office, lodging, entertainment, institutional, and multifamily residential uses. Pursuant to the city of Sparks comprehensive plan, commercial centers uh should vary in scale and character, but should be within easy walking distance of higher density land uses such as highdensity residential, multifamily residential, and intermediate density residential. Additionally, commercial sites should be located between residential land uses and major streets uh such as Sparks Boulevard. The second request is to reszone the site from MF2PUD or multifamily/planned unit development to PO or professional office. Although the proposed commercial land use designation supports a wide range of commercial uses, the proposed PO zoning district supports a more limited range of non-residential uses, including commercial, office, restaurant, institutional uses. The existing PUD overlay was adopted in accordance with Sparks Municipal Code prior to 1980. At that time, SMC allowed for alternative alternative development standards such as setback variation and zero lot line development for attached single family for new subdivisions utilizing the final map process.

However, the subject parcel was created under a parcel map and therefore was not subject to um alternative development standards applicable to the adjacent subdivisions. They did record with a final map. Moving back into the proposed zoning, uh when the application was initially s submitted, a zone change to C2 was requested. Following discussions with our transportation manager regarding the potential uses that could be he heavy traffic generators, uh staff believes that a resoning to professional office would be more suitable for the site. According to the trip generation letter included in the application, the previous child care use averaged an estimated 73 AM peak hour trips and 74 PM peak hour trips. Whereas a medical office, for example, is estimated to average 21 a.m. peak hour trips and 26, excuse me, 21 a.m. peak hour trips and 26 pm peak hour trips. Uh, other uses were also analyzed in the trip generation letter, which can be be seen in exhibit six. uh city transportation staff did review the trip generation letter and has no objections to its findings. On this slide, you can see a comparison of some of the uses permitted in MF2 and PO zoning districts. A complete comparison is in uh exhibit 5. As you can see, reszoning the site as proposed would reduce the number of residential uses that may establish on the site and expand the number of commercial oriented uses that could establish in the future. In accordance with Sparks Municipal Code, there are 35 uses allowed under the proposed PO zone that are not permitted in the MF2, the existing MF2 zone. Examples include, but are not limited to, office, copy centers, medical offices, personal services, animal services, social assistance, welfare, and charitable services. This point I'll move on to the findings that need to be considered this evening

which have been grouped together for the presentation. Our findings for conformance and consistency require conformance with the Truckucky Meadows regional plan and consistency with the city of Sparks comprehensive plan. Starting off with conformance with the regional plan. Finding CP1 requires the comprehensive plan land use conform with the land use and intensity designation in the regional plan. The subject site has a tier one land designation. Properties in tier one are predominantly predominantly developed with a range of residential and non-residential uses and there are no minimum standards or other limitations for non-residential properties. As proposed, the comprehensive planned use uh change supports the continued use of the subject site for commercial purposes in a location where public services and facilities already exist, which complies with the intent standards for tier one. On the slide, we have finding CP2 that requires the comp plan amendment implement the goals of the comprehensive plan and finding Z1 that requires the resoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed commercial land use designation and resoning supports a variety of commercial, office, restaurant, institutional uses, supporting goal MG1 and MG2 related non-residential land uses, land use diversity. The subject site was developed with a commercial building in 1987 and is located in a previously developed area where city services are already being provided at acceptable levels uh supporting policy CF1. As outlined in the staff report, the current MF2 zoning does not conform with the adopted R land use designation. However, the concurrent requests for you today would bring the site's proposed PO zoning into compliance with the proposed commercial land use and thus into compliance with the city's comprehensive plan. Moving on to compatibility. The findings on this slide each focus on

compatibility with surrounding land uses, finding C CP3 for the comp plan land use, and finding Z2 for the resoning. As just discussed, the proposed commercial land use designation and reszoning supports a variety of commercial, office, restaurant, institutional uses. Uh changing the comprehensive plan, land use and zoning for the subject site as proposed is compatible with the surrounding land use designations and developed uses that are generally middle density housing products including small family or small lot single family homes. Properties to the north are designated MF24 in commercial zoned MF4PUD and C2 or general commercial and developed with multifamily apartments and commercials and a commercial center including a grocery store drive-through restaurants, car wash and retail uses. site is adjacent to Sparks Boulevard and the placement of commercial uses between major arterial arterial roads, excuse me, and residential uses can act as a buffer between um that road and the the single family from potential light and noise impacts caused by the vehicles. Properties of the south are designated and community facilities or CF zone MF2PUD SF6PUD and public facilities or PF and are developed with single family homes in a park. Properties east are designated zoned SF6 and F SF6/PUD and are developed with single family homes. And properties of the west are designated R zone MF2D and also developed with single homes. Moving on to finding CP4 and Z3 which require public notice. Uh for both the requests, the planning commission and city council meetings function as the public hearings for the comprehensive plan land use amendment. The statutoily required neighborhood meeting was conducted by the applicant on May 31st.

Uh three members of the public attended that meeting. Attendees did express some concern regarding the previous child care use and the impacts caused by that previous use. Uh in addition, public notice of this meeting was published in the Reno Gazette Journal and mail not mailed notice was provided to 390 individual property owners within 700 ft of the subject property on July 1st. For the last slide, I did include some photos of the site taken in May. In conclusion, staff believes the proposed comprehensive plan amendment uh to change the land use designation from intermediate density residential to commercial and the proposed reszoning from MF2/PUD uh to professional office is compatible with the area surrounding the subject site. Additionally, the the requests are consistent with the site being developed with commercial building in 1987 and being utilized for commercial operations for the past 38 years. Uh staff is recommending the planning commission approve the comprehensive plan amendment and forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the resoning request. Uh if these requests are approved, staff anticipates the request going before regional planning commission in August. Uh city council for first reading on September 22nd, city council for second reading on October 13th. And with that, I'm available any questions at the

Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the staff? Does the applicant want to add anything?

You come up here, state your name, please. I'm Ana Kings and I am in the processing the building or hoping to the building and um we're hoping to bring behavior analysis clinic to provide um we're searching this particular uh location. We're we're really excited about this particular location because it is set up as a child care which is very um suitable for what we're what we do. However, given the fact that we're not child care and we're categorized as medical office or um we need to seek resoning in order um this helps understanding what why we're seeking this.

Sure. All right. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Do we have any questions for the Yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Colby. This is a public hearing item. Does anybody wish to comment on this particular issue? I see none. I'll close public comment on this. Commissioners, do we have any further discussion? No. Commissioner Reid, I have none.

All right. I'll take a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to adopt resolution. Yes. We haven't done the res. Yeah. Yes.

Uh Mr. Chair, I move to adopt resolution number uh 246 adopting the comp comprehensive plan land planned use amendment 5-00002 associated with PCN5- eight lending comprehensive plan land use designation for 2301 Sparks Boulevard from intermediate density residential to commercialbased findings and the fact supporting these findings as set forth staff report that motion.

All right, we got a move by Commissioner Pritzell, a second by Commissioner Neberline. We'll enter we'll take a vote. Commissioner Reid. Hi.

All right. It passes unanimously. Right. Now we'll move on to PCN25-00008RZ25-00002. He doesn't have to do anything. We just we just have to open it for public. So, we just need to open this up for public comment. Does anybody wish to comment on this particular item? All right. I see none. I will close public comment. Commissioners, do we have any further discussion? All right. I'll entertain a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move to forward a recommendation of approval. findings. Second that motion. All right, we got a move by Commissioner Kramer, a second by Commissioner Neberline. Let's vote. Oh, do we have any more discussion? No. No. All right. Commissioner Reid I.

All right, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Kobe. Now we're moving on to PCN25-000010V25-00001.

Thank you, Mr. chairman for the record, Scott Kerry, development services manager. Um before I dive dive into my presentation, I wanted to u make a public disclosure for the record if you could, Mr. Chair. Okay. Um I want to make a voluntary public disclosure. My home is located within the 500 foot noticing radius over on Coupler Court. Um it's about a half mile, half block away and around the corner from the subject site. I wanted to state that although my home is within the noticing radius, I do not believe that I am materially impacted by the planning commission's deliberation on this item. I want to make a voluntary disclosure for the public's benefit to state that I do not believe my judgment as a staff reviewer for this item has been impacted for my home's proximity to the site. Additionally, as a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, AICP, um I am bound by a code of ethics and professional conduct. In the spirit of the code and the principles us as AICP members are are bound to uphold, I'd like to publicly disclose that my home is within the noticing radius um and to avoid the in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. With this disclosure being made, I wanted to state for the record that I do not believe that I I do believe that I can continue my review in this case as a staff member based on the evidence presented in this case in a manner and and do so in an impartial decision making capacity. Um furthermore, I I do not I do not believe that I stand to materially benefit in any way from the planning commission's um decision on this. So out of a extreme abundance of caution in the spirit of NRS 278 or 22 281A and the public disclosure in general, I just wanted to make this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Scott.

So for the um commission's consideration tonight is a variance request over on on Union Street. Um the subject site was or has a single family home on it that was constructed in 1981. Um, concurrent on this site is a planned unit development overlay. Similar to the last item you just previously heard, um, that is an older um, plan unit development overlay. Um, in this instance, it was to allow for reduced um, setbacks and attached single family products. You can kind of see to the south of the of the subject site. Um, that that zero lot line development does not apply to this subject site. Just wanted to explain that PUED overlay. Um the reason we are here today is there is a variance request to reduce the required uh rear yard set to encroach into the required rear yard setback and into the front yard setback. This site is in the SF6 zoning district which requires for additions to the home a 20ft rear yard setback. Um the the currently unpermitted structure is nine feet from from from that rear property line. In the front outlined here in area C, there is an unpermitted addition to the carport. Um that is encroaching into the required front yard 20 yard set or 20 foot setback for for for garages. This case was brought to the planning planning division as a result of a building investigation that was initiated by the building division earlier this year. And since that time, the applicant has been working with city staff to obtain a building permit to permit these um unpermitted structures. Looking back at the satellite data, it's staff's interpretation um that these structures have been on the site since

uh 2002. There's the unpermitted area A which is the subject of the variance request and area C in the front. Um there's also an unpermitted area B on the rear that's been added to that is within the current um setback requirements and it's not part of this variance request. Here's some photos provided by the applicant showing this would be the rear of the property line and showing the addition A area um showing that 9 foot setback to the rear property line. Here's another shot um from the applicant showing this rear rear edition and the 9 foot setback. This wall is part of that area B that's unpermitted but it's um currently outside the setback. this uh patio cupboard. There was a building permit issued for that. It's not part of the subject um of tonight's meeting. And here's a picture of the front of the of the property which shows the uh unpermitted carport or garage addition in the front that's encroached into the 20 foot setback. So, um, following the discussion at, uh, the planning commission meeting, I added a couple slides to kind of explain how municipal code works in terms of allowing flexibility in in in the code standards. There's three processes. The first one is m minor deviations. And so those are are those allow for deviation of any measurable standard in code up to 10%. My apologies at the planning commission study session I said it was from 10 to 20% only up to 10%. Um subsequently so those are approved at the staff level no public hearing or notification that's required. The next level is major deviation and major deviations allowed by code to pro to provide deviation to the code from between 10% to 50%. And then lastly we have variance requests which are

anything above 50%. So, um, shout out to our senior civil engineer, Susan Yang, helped me put together these these slides. Um, in a hypothetical situation where this is a single, we'll say this is a single family house. They have a patio cover in the rear outlined here in yellow. And that there's a 10-ft setback requirement. So under the the the minor deviation process with a 10-foot setback, they could encroach within that setback through the minor through the approval of minor minor deviation up to one foot with the uh major deviation. And so that's a public hearing. It does go before this body for consideration. There's different findings that you have to have to have to make that would allow for a maximum of 50% um deviation from the code. You can kind of see the the yellow the patio cover is getting a little bigger. And then finally, just to demonstrate a variance would be anything above that 50% standard. So in this instance, it's you probably, you know, three feet away from the property line. Just to kind of high visualize that this process works. So, um, as as outlined in the staff report, there's a very high threshold and a high bar for variance requests as outlined in in Nevada RI statute as well as the the municipal code. Um, variance requests are designed to be rare in nature and are done for unique circumstances and to deal with the demonstrated hardship. Variance requests are not granted to relieve hardships that are solely personal, self-created or financial in value. Rather, variances are intended to provide relief to individual property owners where the application of code standards would create an undue hard hardship. Um, typically variance requests are granted when there is a irregular lock configuration or some sort of a geographical um thing on the on the property, you know, such as a topography or maybe a body of water or something something in that. One thing I did want to point out

pursuant to Sparks municipal code, cost to the applicant of strict compliance shall not be the sole reason for granting a variance request. So there are seven findings for a variance request. These are very rare instances. It's been quite a few years since the planning commission seen seen a request like this. um staff believes that it cannot make findings V1, V2, V3 and V4 and I will uh dive into those and outline some of those reasons right right now. So the first one is exceptional extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property. This uh exhibit number seven here is from the approved final map for the Willow Creek uh phase 2 subdivision in 19 1980. Um as you can see it's a pretty regularl looking size lot. It meets the min met the minimum lot dimensions and size requirements at the time and it would under today's code is as well too. So it's staff interpretation that this site does not possess any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. Um and we believe that the hardship from these unpermitted um additions to the home are are are are self self-created hardship. Finding V2 is strict interpretation of of an enforcement of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of of privileges. Um staff believes that due to the size and conforming shape of the property, denial of the variance request would not deprive the property owner of privileges granted to other property owners who must comply with land coverage, lot size, height limitation, and setbacks of the SF6 zoning district. So therefore, staff does not believe that the strict interpretation of the enforcement of the of the code would deprive the applicant of of privileges enjoyed by other property owners who are complying with standards of the zoning code. Finding V3 is the granting of the variance will not

constitute a special privilege. Staff finds that because all properties within the SF 6 zoning district are subject to the same standards, granting this variance um could constitute a or grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations that are imposed on other property owners within the SF6 zoning zoning district. This is a photo here taken earlier um when this application came in showing the the the the unpermitted addition to the front of the house. Um I will note for the record um this was previously part of the building investigation. These unpermitted roof additions that went to the property line, those have since been removed by the applicant. And these um accessory structures on the side of the house, there there are plans by the applicant to remove them next month. The next finding that staff believes it cannot make is is finding B4. And so this deals with uh public health, safety and welfare. Um the primary goal of setback requirements within the municipal code are to prevent spread of fire uh between buildings and provide sufficient space for the fire department to respond during during an emergency to effectively combat fires. Um given the fact that the unpermitted structures identified in A and area C could block either sideyard in a manner that could impede the the fire department, um staff believes that although it may not substantially um it could impair public health, safety and welfare and doesn't believe that it can meet um finding V4. Um V5 deals with with natural resources. Uh the site has been developed with a single family residence and these un permitted structures for several decades. The site has an intermediate density residential land use which is in which is in conformance with the with the city's master plan. Um staff believes that the um the request would not impair the availability of natural resources.

Um finding V6 deals with the affordable housing. Uh this various request does involve one single family residential home. Um staff believes that um this finding could likely be be met does not. And then finally, the last one is V7, and that's public hearing. Um, notice of today's public hearing was published in the Reno Gazette Journal on July 1st. Notices were mailed to 164 property owners within 500 ft of the subject site on on June on July 3rd. Um, the planning commission meeting functions as a as a public hearing. Um, so to date, staff has received a total of eight requests or eight public comments. One was a request for additional information and we have received seven requests in support of the variance requests. Um one thing I will point out um since the the public or since the study session meeting the applicant has received a um letter of support from the property owner to the rear of of the sub subject site in support of the we'll let the applicant speak more to that. I just wanted to point that out. So overall, um staff believes that the portions of the house that violate the municipal code setbacks are result of unpermitted additions and because of this compliance with the setback requirements is feasible given the size, shape, and dimensions of the subject site. Staff recommends that the planning commission deny the variance request without prejudice. Um staff understands that the applicant did not undertake these additions and is generally trying to bring the property into compliance and we look forward to continuing to work with the applicant on that. Um additional um however based on the information provided by the application and subsequent discussion it does not appear that there are any peculiar or se or exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardships resulting from the size, shape and dimensions of the site. And uh

so we are therefore recommending denial. Um should the planning commission um want to approve this um we do we have prepared um exhibit 8 which does outline some suggested conditions of approval um to to to do so. The intent behind these conditions of approval to make sure that any of these unpermitted additions obtain a building permit to do so. So that's uh all I got on this one. Mr. Chair, be happy to answer any technical questions. The applicant is here as well.

All right. Thanks, Scott. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Scott for staff? The requirements similar to a variance as far as what we would have to find. Is there a lower threshold or are we still bound by the same restriction of looking at if it's only financial hardship, would that apply to deviations as well?

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner. Um, in the in the instance of a major deviation, there are four um findings that that are that are required for the planning commission to make. Um, one of those does not include the the demonstrated hardship. It's very similar to a conditional use permit where we're looking at public safety and welfare and we're looking at natural resources um and and to in condition to identify and address things. But there's there's just four. Um, so we feel it's it's it's it's a lower bar at the at the major deviation level

services manager Kerry has addressed. Just add a little more context in the uh zoning code amendment of approximately 2015 is when the major deviation component was added into the Spark Municipal Code. Other local jurisdictions have more recently adopted the major deviation in our area as a tool because the variance is so very difficult uh for a staff or a commission to make findings on. So it was a it was a a tool to allow for some of these extenduating circumstances that were beyond the state statute deviation component of a minor deviation. It does call that out state statute that 10% is the maximum that the administrator that can do without a hearing. So it was that uh component of 10 to 50% that was added.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I if I could just add to to give a little more background on that. The the main difference that I see between a variance and a major deviation as far as the findings need to be made is that the the exceptional or undue hardship or the peculiar or exceptional practical difficulty is not a required finding of Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Elkins. And so it's got at the time that the modifications to the building were made that the existence of the same thing.

Yeah, thank you commissioner for the question. That that's a very good question. Um I'm not I'm not quite sure. I'd have to go back and look at the at the zoning code requirements. Um it's my understanding, you know, when this when the subdivision was was approved, there was a 20 foot um setback that was called out for the for the garage. Um so I believe that was that was called out on the on the improvement plans initially. So that would have been in time that would have been in place at the time of of of when these were built around 2002 is our best guess. The rear I think it's it's probably likely it was it was 20 feet as well too. Chair, I believe in the 1976 adoption of the mun the S6 approved a 20 foot front setback for a driveway and or for garage and 20

76 I don't think I was born yet. I wasn't really. So any commissioners, do you have any questions for Scott? Any more for staff? I So guess one of the things that I I'm I'm curious, you can't answer this, Scott, is when the building permit was issued for the patio cover,

nobody looked at anything else. I mean, it's kind of it's it's like what did we not did we not take a look? Did we not did we just issue it because that was there? I mean, go ahead.

Thank you for the question, Commissioner. Um, I'm not sure. The the record's pretty pretty sparse in looking at that building permit. I wasn't able to see the the planning staff comments in there, but it was issued and we we would consider with that building permit being issued a legal structure, but nobody looked at any, you know, or was the what? Because looks like the patio covers attached to the unpermitted part of the house that didn't get a permit either. So, I guess I'm curious to see did we drop Did we drop the ball? I'm not sure. I I wasn't part of the I know

the the review back then and without the record to to to to to go back and look. Um uh next question. So obviously this house has gained square footage um with this is this new square is all of this unpermitted work um tax.

Good question commissioner. I I believe so. Um looking at the original improvement plans and clicking on some similar models within this subdivision, I think the initial uh square footage was something like 1,80 something square feet. Um, looking at the county assessor, it looks like it's over 2500 square feet. So, that leads me to believe that the county assessor has been taxing this. All right. I have Commissioner Reed, do you have any questions? No, I don't.

Okay. Commissioner, do we have any more questions for staff? I think I know the answer, but just for the record, was this brought to your guys's attention by a complaint or how did this come to your attention? Yeah, this uh this request came to the department's um attention because of a complaint from the from a citizen.

All right. You you may come up and add to what's what this is. And we may have some questions for you. Thanks, Scott. And just to make sure we have a clean record, you've provided a a pretty long I'll call it what you titled it, variance application for 1045 Union Street. Additional details for public meeting. So, everybody got that? uh outlining your just more background and and arguments in favor of it. So I just want to make it clear that everybody has this. We got

um state your name. Yeah. Thank you very much. My name is Terry Morris and um I am the for this varian request and I am acting on behalf uh with the owner since um uh yeah so can I can I make those bigger or no wonder I'm just wondering

oh just there okay thank you very much okay um so um um My train of thought here. Okay. So, I'm I'm actually um I went to school here. I went to Reed High School um in graduated in 1978. Just to give you a little bit of background about myself, I went to UNR, graduated in 1982, and I went to San Francisco. Um in 1989, we go from Ireland. I have lived since and that was to marry an Irish. Um so, I would come back to my mother's home. Um, normally two or three times a year. When she got home last couple of years, I would come home a little bit more often and stay longer. Um, so that's just a little bit of background about me and my um connections parks. Um, okay. I suppose um what I put here was I put together these details because um someone had one of the commissioners which had asked last session um you know when I was saying that this going to be hardship and the primary reason why we were making this variance request was because there was no feasible path to actually get into compliance and I have been working with uh the city spark to get in compliance as much as possible wherever it is feasible and so I didn't see any feasible path I'm certainly open to suggestions uh but from my point of view I want to get the house in mind um so one of the questions that came up in the study was um I said that if we are denied this that the hardship due to us due to uh what we would have to do in the house the re reconfiguration of the house was just going to be massive was going to be significant and so I was asked you know explain that

a little bit more so in trying to explain that I thought I would have to show you some of the pictures and some of the history of how the house has actually developed over the years so this is something that happened um if you can look back on Google Maps, it's clearly shown on there. This has been in place for over 20 years. Okay? And you can imagine that when anybody moves into a house um they make improvements in terms of how they're living and using the house and if they make one improvement and then they make another one that might compound what's happening uh you know the effect of um the changes onto the house. So it's not like you just make one change and you can easily undo it. you made one change and then another change and then another change. Uh it becomes much much more harder because the change has become entrenched in the building. Um okay. So, I just want to bring up a clarification um first of all, just because this has been brought up a couple of times um about and and it was actually directly put into um the report and to be honest, I'm I'm I was actually a little bit surprised because I'm not sure where this comes from. Um and it it it states that my uh that our main uh uh reason for applying for the variance cost and it is not. Um I have uh we have uh from the minute that we found out about uh the uh code violation, we have gone out to try to to uh make amendments and to get into code as much as possible. Um and uh we have spent a lot of money already. uh it has never uh like I mean you know it's never been a first priority on our mind. The first priority on our mind is to make sure that that the house is in compliance in the best way that that we know how to do it. Um

so that has never been uh the uh the main uh reason why um you know we applied for the the variance. Uh it has not been about cost. So I'll just explain that we spent five grand. Okay. Nearly five grand experience application. Um when we were told about the uh structures off to the side, we spent another five grand to have those removed. When those were were removed, it left the whole side the building with rough edges. So we are now in the process of fixing that. That is going to cost us,000 as well. The amount of time and travel that I have spent on this has been massive. Absolutely massive. Um and you know, I mean it's it it has been it has been huge. So and and the other thing is that when you know if um if there are um if we are granted the variance we are more than happy to fully comply with the building code. So from our point of view this the cost thing has never been our initial consideration at all. um first and foremost has been about compliance and working with the city transparently and in good faith to bring this into uh code. And as I said, if I knew of an easier way or some way to bring the house back into code, I would do it. But I just cannot see it at the moment. Um the other the other thing, and I I think Scott had mentioned this is that somehow maybe the staff feel that this was self-inflicted. Um this is not something that I did. This is not something that my brother did. This was something that was done over 20 years ago. Um and I don't know of any one who thinks of a sense of fairness who would try to apply um uh you know actions of somebody else of the previous

occupant to somehow making me responsible for this when I am specifically trying to bring this into compliance. This is also not a matter that is just personal to me. Um, if we have to make significant changes to this house, it will no longer become our home. It will become an issue for whoever the new owner is. So, I am trying to bring it into compliance. This is, you know, I'm trying to work with you. Um, it is a hardship that that is going to come upon us uh by removing these structures that have been there for so long. Um and and primarily because of a lot of the the work that need the major reconstruction that needs to happen on the inside. And um the thing about this being a privilege um this was another thing that was brought up. So I think I I need to kind of talk around that as well. I don't believe that this is a special privilege because uh these structures have been in place for so long. So, it's not like we're asking for a new build or anything like that. This is just to try to get get the house into compliance. Um, if we were to take these down, what it will do to the house itself is that it will make the living area um unbalanced uh disproportionate. the whole living area, the whole common area of the house will be disproportionately large matched with bedrooms that will be disproportionately small. So, as these improvements were made to the house over a period of time, additional improvements were made. So, it's not like you even have the original bedroom there. This was a four bedroomedroom house. That bedroom if you

remove it then becomes the size of a closet because that bedroom was actually made into an on suite and then a bigger a much much bigger bedroom. So you remove that we remove we we get rid of that bedroom completely that was used and it was an integral part of the house that goes. So unless we actually have to remove the ensuite as well to get that bedroom back there there's just so many changes that have happened in the house. So what I'm saying is that um you know this for me is not a privilege because it has been there for so long. It hasn't impacted like there hasn't been any complaints as far as we know. I understand Scott is saying that they received a complaint. I I you know I would be more than happy if I understood what the issue was. I would be more than happy to try to address that. I haven't no one spoke to us about it. Um but you know um the the house itself looks the same as any other house in the area. these improvements were made to the back of the house

and I I I feel I actually feel that we are trying to bring this into code in any feasible way possible and we're more than happy to do that. Um but I feel that asking us to take this down is only not only not extending us a privilege but is actually um it is actually penalizing us something. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Um I'll just go through this. I'm sorry. So, it was built in 1981. Four bedrooms, one uh one master, three additional bedrooms. Our mother bought it in 1984. So, she changed it over time. Uh there were only two people in that house, her and her husband. So, there was no uh need to have a lot of space. She became an international Google ambassador for both the city of Sparks and the state. And it was at that time that she embraced this role and she started making improvements to the house. She purposely remodeled the house to create a warm and welcoming environment in service to that role. What I've done here is I've done just a kind of summary of what it was when it installed. There was um so the bedroom one was the original part of the house. It's up in the front. It's a small bedroom. Um after the bedrooms were added in the back, um my mom wanted she figured she had these extra bedrooms in the back. So what she did was she cut into bedroom one to provide a display area. I'll show you. Um so that bedroom is now smaller. Bedroom two uh was part of the original uh house and when she built on to the back what she did with with bedroom 4 was um she created an on suite for bedroom 2. Uh and then the the bedroom four is now has part of the original bedroom plus the extension which is the the structure that was added on. Bedroom three is the master master bedroom. Now there were some minor changes but essentially that one is unchanged. And bedroom four um let's see so about a fourth of that bedroom is part of the existing house. Uh and as I said it was split between adding an on suite. So the rest of it was actually built 20 years ago. But essentially denial will mean we

will lose bedroom 4 completely because it it just it just it literally will be the size of a closet now unless we remove the the the on suite as well. Bedroom five was added 20 years ago. So denial again will mean we would loen the entire the entire bedroom. So you can see see that there's really only one room that was not impacted by the addition of this. And this is what I mean by it will take a reconfiguration of the entire house. Um, okay. So, and that that if you take this off, you're not going to just kind of get a a normal layout again. Um, okay. I'll just go into these. So, I'll dive into these. So, this one is the the living room. So, as you as you come into the house, this is the living room. this, as I said, she made these improvements to host her parties and functions and fundraising events and things like that. She opened her house to the community. Um, these are a, you know, several tables there that she used for for hosting events. Um, and on the walls they are adorned with photos that hang uh of her and her husband taken with presidents from the US and abroad and dignitaries and awards that she's been given over the years. And also, of course, her prize pictures are those of her children. Then this is uh the kitchen. So this is kind of to the if well I think of it to the front, but it's actually to as you move to the back of the house. This is the kitchen on the right hand side. And at the end of the island is a comm commercial food warming unit. And she used this when she ordered prepared food that she used to buy in bulk and she would keep everything warm there. So there's actually if you can see it there at the end of the island it's a silver unit that is where she kept all of her food. Then there is like a TV a sitting area and to the left of that there is

also another fridge. To the right of that is another living room hosting area. It's um like a back living area. And again, you can see this uh is to accommodate more tables. Now, because we removed the structures on the side, we had to bring some of those in. So, it's a bit cluttered right now. And I literally did not have time to move those things around. Um but that's what the clutter is at the moment. It's because we removed those based on our voluntary voluntary we were very happy to voluntarily remove those structures and I Yeah. So that is the back living area. Now this is the display area. So as you come into the door, this is if you could see she cut into room one because she had the rooms in the back. So she cut into room one to make a display area here. Okay. So room one is smaller, but that's the reason why it was a small room to begin with. Yes.

So she moved a lot of walls inside this house. Um, yeah, I'd say so. Yes, but she has ma major structures and beams that are still there. Yes. Um, let me see. Okay. So then, and just to answer, I I think it was it uh Commissioner Kramer was asking about the the the property assessment. Yes, she does pay on the higher on the higher footage. She does. Um, let me just see. Okay. So, on to the bedroom. So, this is this is bedroom one. It is small bedroom. Um, again, you know, it's actually smaller than normal because she cut into it. So, um, it's kind of used for storage at the moment. This is bedroom two. And that she always says, "This is Tererry's room. That's my room. That's where I stay when I come to visit." This was part of the original house. To the left of this image is where bedroom four would be. Um, and when the extension was built, she split bedroom 4. Okay, this is the on suite. So, as I said, that was bedroom 4. She split it. So, she made part of it an on suite and then part of it is um bedroom the bigger bedroom four that has the extension. And then this is bedroom three, which is the master bedroom. And actually, because we're going through our state right now, uh there's a lot of boxes in there as well. Now this is um this is bedroom four. Okay the sorry the blue line on there that is where the house had originally ended. So you can see this is now part of bedroom 4. So bedroom 4 was turned into an ensuite and if we get rid of that what we have now is basically a closet. So we lose that entire bedroom.

basically is we lose the entire bedroom. But that that room um is used to for guests. Um and it is uh it has also been used to accommodate exchange students. Um this is bedroom five and this is a guest room. Okay. So in terms of the variance code, so the code authorizes the planning commission to grant a variance for the development of property if it's necessary to prevent or lessen peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardships. And I think this is a practical difficulty which if it is not granted will result in a huge um hardship and and the difficulties are hardships are the result from a strict application enforcement and and I think that is exactly I when I look at this I feel like that is exactly what our case is about a strict enforcement of of of the code because there are different ways and I think we talked about it during the study session of how it can be interpreted about the practical difficulties and the hardships and things like that. It is it is not a thing of cost that we are coming to you about. It's about the layout and the major reconfiguration that would be required and there is no practical path no feasible path to actually sort that. I want to sort this and so the only way that I can see to sort it is to apply for the variance and I am more than open to other ideas if there is some other way that we can sort this.

Okay.

Um so the structures in question have been in place for over 20 years. Um so the code further states that uh a a particular exceptional practical difficulty may result so it says may result in the size shape or dimensions of the site and I know that has been pointed out that there's no difference in the lot in terms of the size and dimensions and things like that but it is may and I I do believe when I read that and I and I thought okay May it didn't say it has to I feel that relying on that interpretation is relying on a very strict interpretation of the code. The other thing it does say however is uh that it can be uh that result from the location of existing structures. Okay. So if I look at some of the um existing um structures as they are now the we have uh we have the on suite there and what we have if you remove it is we you know we're going to have a closet and the only way that we will get back that bedroom is by removing an existing structure which is the ensuite and so that I think clearly ly represents what is allowed for the variance in the uh in the code. Um okay, let me just see here. Okay. Okay. And then and then I suppose finally the one thing I had and I had mentioned this before was that we are the the difference between the major deviation which we were told would most likely be granted and the variance is a difference of one foot and I I asked I asked you know I have asked that that be taken into

consideration and I understand the job of the planners is to enforce the code and I'm sure it must be difficult because I'm sure they must be getting people all the time who aren't happy. But the thing is I also feel that that is a strict enforcement of the code because it's not you know I I I feel that we're very very close as well. So I feel that there are strict enforcements of the code on several levels. And so I think that when you take them all into consideration that that is actually um um I think it's very apparent anyways that it's um uh that this kind of that this code for the variance is something that was meant for our type of situation. Um okay and then here I had gone over the cost thing. Um, so I won't go over that again. Okay, this was just the thing about the findings uh for approval. Um, so it says that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and I would say that not every zoning, not every property has gone through the sort of long-term purpose- driven modification that we have that my my mother has done. um that has s significantly the house has been significantly altered because her role is a longtime um occupant and an international goodwill ambassador for the city of Sparks. Um she hosted all these uh these events and over decades the the layout reshaped um not uh not for expansion shape expans uh expansions sake sorry but to support um her role in her service to the community and the additional bedrooms with the ensues uh were for guests and exchange students the extended living areas like there's only two people there. They don't need that size of a

house. these extensions were done in her service to the community um and even the specific design elements that she had put in the house were were therefore hosting and they've been fully integrated into the structure of the house and the functionality of the home. Uh so I think these are exceptional conditions specific to this property that uh you don't see in most properties and as such I I feel again that they that they justify the need for a variance. It does not say the code does not say that these circumstances can only apply to topography. Um we have already moved these structures in the spirit of compliance and transparency. We've been open the entire time. Um and um as I said like at the moment I we don't see a feasible path to get into compliance with this area. Um so section two is that strict interpretation of enforcement law would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties. And I feel that owners of other properties they enjoy sort of a a balanced well proportion proportioned living space which we actually have at the moment. But if we if we if it's denied, we won't because we'll have extra large common areas and very small um bedroom areas. And so it's it's it is actually it it's not we are not actually enjoying um you know um the benefits that other people uh would have in the area because of that. Um, okay. Um, the variance would not con constitute a grant or special privilege. I think I already talked about that. Yeah.

Um, so, okay. Um, wrap this up a little bit for us. Okay. I'm sorry. Um, all right. I think I'm nearly there. Okay. So, um, so there's just a couple letters of support, and I would just say

those who are directly impacted by that have come in with their letters of support. Um there's also two additional ones here. Um and then I just show you some some information here about her role in supporting the city of Sparks. This is when she was appointed um the uh international ambassador for the city of Sparks under Mayor Jim Spoo. Um this was a special congressional recognition she got from uh Senator John Enen at the time for her role u for the work that she was doing. she organized um she became um she put together an organization called the international goodwill ambassadors in her circle um and that was basically to pull together several people there mostly business people who were there to support her in her role in supporting the community and they did lots of fundraising events. So you can see this is one event in particular after the death of a former governor Kenny Gwyn. She um raised money for the Kenny Gen memorial uh Millennium Scholarship Fund. Um and then here is a recognition for Goodwill functions in her home. Uh she was heavily supported by Mayor Gino Gino Martini who passed away two years ago. Um she also was very grateful for the support of Cindy Boen. Um, so these were just some of the pictures taken in her own home. Um, more pictures here, cakes around the the U kitchen table. Um, this is a letter that we received from Joe Dutra, who's the president of Kimmy Candy International Candy Company, who has been to my mom's home several times, and he um he brought in this letter of support as well, um, saying how she has used the home to welcome people. Um then we got this one as well today from Karina Black who is the executive director of the Northern Nevada um International Center. Um and again just confirming how our mother's home was

opened um to the community. Our mother was also a member her and her husband were a member of uh Sutoma International and they were also like patrons because they believed in um and were committed to a life of service. In terms of the Nevada Veterans Memorial Plaza, you'll see that my my mother, she's listed right there under the gold the the major donors. Uh and you'll see the city of Sparks, I'm sorry, it's on the other side. She gave more than the city of Sparks. Um so, uh you know, she has been a big support of this community and um even all the changes that she made in the house were in support of the community. Um this is actually she got a the Republic of Taiwan Republic of China Friend of Foreign Service Medal Award. This is the highest honor that can be bestowed on a civilian. And this was the work that she did between the governments. She actually was one of the main people who uh helped to set up the sister city relationship between Tai Chong and Reno. Um I think I'm just about at the end here. Let me just see. that was just on her younger years again as a the city uh ambassador here. So my variance request um I I won't go over that. I I just wanted to clarify again some of those things and I think it's just really important here about the city awareness. they were we were told that they were very aware of this and I I I just think that when uh this this is this retroactive sort of enforcement now when these when they when the city was aware of this and nothing actually happened at that time it it feels like there's a bit of a bite I have to say especially when my mother um provided so much service uh to the city and to the community. Um, okay. So, just just that we're doing everything in good faith and I would respectfully ask for the commission to

um to recognize the exceptional circumstances in this case. Um, to consider the hardship that will result uh directly from of the very specific uh and particular interpretation of the uh the code and to consider the impact on the livability and usability of the home. Uh, and if you have any questions, I'm I thank you for your time and uh we have any questions. Thank you. Appreciate you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Terry? Comment now. I just service. Thank you and for your family service is very much appreciated. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Um, got a question. I know this is a long time ago, but do you know if this work was performed by a licensed contractor and was there an engineer involved when the walls were taken out? Cuz that's concerning to me just knowing earthquakes in the area and everything like that that um do you know who the work was performed by? I don't I don't because it was a long time ago and uh as I said like uh I live in Ireland so like as I said like I don't even know like a lot of times I come back and it's like oh you did this you know I actually don't know but I as I say we are more than happy if you want to have if you want to require us to have an engineer look at it more than happy to do that I'm more than happy I want to make sure that it is safe and I think that was one other thing I think that um Scott may have brought up and for some reason I didn't catch it uh from last Tuesday was the thing about safety. I thought I had um heard from a previous report that they were actually fine with that. Um uh yeah. So I you know I I uh I I can't imagine especially with the structures coming out uh that those should be an issue, but I thought I thought the report from the fire department was that

um would you be open to taking like three feet off the back of the house to get you under 50% variance? Is that something that you had discussed with staff or You know what? Um I I spoke to I actually spoke to my um my brother about that today. I said, you know, sounds crazy. I've never heard of it. I said, but is that a possibility because of the way the house is pitched? I think it would be okay. I'm not an engineer, but I

I would be happy to look into it. I'm more than happy to look into it. And as as I said, from our point of view, we want to be transparent. We want to work with you. And also, we want everything to be safe. Thank you. Any more questions, commissioners? Nope. Thank you, Terry.

So, this is a public hearing item and anybody wish to speak can speak to this and I have a a request to address the planning commission from Sylvia Cal Calclo. and I apologize for butchering your name. So, you're more than welcome to come up.

My name is Sylvia Kokllo. Um my husband Jeff and I um are residents to next door or um to the north of um their house. Um the only concern that we have for the addition is um that the electrical and the drainage is up. That's the only concern we have. Electrical and drainage. Is that it? All right. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak on this particular item?

I see none. I will close public comment. Commissioners, do we have any further questions on this? I have a question for uh for Scott.

For Scott. Okay. So in exhibit 8 number four um unpermitted structures identified as area A and area C and attachment shall obtain a building permit and comply with all applicable building and fire codes. So that was confusing to me. So if there if there if there's no changes to the buildings, do they obtain a building permit and have have uh inspectors come in and check it out to leave the structures as they are?

Is that what that means? Yeah, thanks commissioner for the question. Scott Kerry, development services manager for the for the record. Um I believe the intent behind uh condition 4 is to make sure that the areas that are covered under this variance request should the planning commission want to approve them would would obtain a building permit. Through the building permit we would staff would ensure that the building code and fire codes are being met. Um I will note we did leave out um area B. Um but as part of that process we work with the applicant to make sure that that area is is is properly permitted. Okay. Thank you.

Could I make a comment, please? Have uh no predisposition as to what the planning commission may vote on this. Staff's recommendation has been outlined. With that recommendation, as with all the public hearings, as you've seen tonight and and previously, outlines a motion where they make the case for finding. Should the planning commission not want to uh support staff's finding, each commissioner will have to identify how each finding is met because staff has ex explained how they are not. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, commissioners. Do we have any more questions for Scott? Do we have any further discussion on this? And Scott, you said that there's there's a couple of approvals you said that have been written. Conditions of approval. Conditions of approval. It's exhibit eight in your Okay. All right. Yeah, that's right.

Yeah. Should the should the planning commission um you know want want to approve this um staff has prepared an alternative motion um to to that effect. Um and then there are um conditions of approval outlined in exhibit exhibit 8 there. Um I was given a notice of notice of typo on exhibit 8. Um in number two there's mention of administrative review where this is a variance request. We look at these things a lot. We missed that. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Chair. But um the big thing is should the planning commission want to approve this variance request, we would ask that on the record um the commission make um comments on how they believe that that that the findings can be met. Um staff does not believe findings v1, two, and three and four can be met, but if certainly it's at the discretion of the commission, you know, to have an alternative opinion, and we'd ask that you do your best to formulate that on the record. And this is the the alternative motion should you want to go that route.

And I can add if if anybody wants to discuss a possible motion, we could take a recess for whoever is going to take a motion just discuss kind of put those findings on the record. Anybody want to take a recess to kind of this? I'm going to tell you right now, I'm not inclined to approve. Um I'm inclined to side with staff on this. Um because I feel for the applicant. I do. I have empathy for you, ma'am. Um I really do. But if we grant this various we variance we are setting a precedent for everybody in the city that can come back to us and say well you did this for this applicant and now I want to do this this and this and they're going to come back to us with a bunch with unpermitted work that has been done and now they're going to ask us for forgiveness when in fact we've already done it once and then and we I believe we lead our leave ourselves wide open

for down the road for legal and it's not it's not a pretty picture and unfortunately for you your mom did all of this work and as much as work that she did it was wonderful to be able to accommodate what she was doing at the time and I understand that but as as the chair said your mom moved a bunch of walls and I get that walls can be put back as long as structurally the structure of the building was not harmed in the moving of those walls. Um I just we would provide you with a special privilege that we haven't provided anybody else. And that's not and and to me unfortunately you got stuck with what your mom did like a lot of us do when our parents end up dying. We get stuck with the things that they've done and we have to fix it as their children. Um, it's not it's not the best place to be in, but it is it's a reality for all of us. Um, I I I cannot under good conscience say to approve a variance. I just I can't do it.

So, I I just want to echo a lot of what Commissioner Kramer said. Um, I can't personally speak to um finding V4, but I can't find uh V1, two or three. I think that

this, like Commissioner Kramer said, would be setting a a precedent of ask for forgiveness, not for permission. Um, and I I also understand your point of view, but I'm I think that the interpretation of special privilege, the way that I'm interpreting it is that not every house in that area has these additions. And if we're just saying, well, they've been there for 20 years, so be it. then that is a special privilege because not everybody else is enjoying the additional acreage or the additional rooms. Uh and so for for those reasons I agree with Commissioner Kramer and I I can't find uh I can't come to finding uh V1 2 or three.

All right. Are we done discussing? Commissioner Reid, do you have any comments? No, only that I do agree with Commissioner Kramer and Commissioner Pritzos that um I do not find that there's any reason to go against staff and conditions B1, B2, B3, B4 cannot be met. So I won't be voting in favor of this. Okay. All right. I will entertain. Pardon me.

You'd like your discretion. Um, no, we we got enough information that you provided us. So, um, I think Yes. We don't want to ever hear from this again, but when we're doing it without prejudice that we're saying that you can continue to work on this. Um, but that's correct. Is that correct?

That's correct, Commissioner. Um it's kind of a procedural thing outlined in in the variance section of code. Um if the commission were you know they is their discretion if you were to deny it with prejudice they could not come back I believe it's six months. Okay. But without prejudice they can continue working with us and with staff to find I understand. So so I have I have another I have a followup to that. So if if the applicant were to remove 3 ft from the back of the house, they could come back to us with a conditional use permit. Is that correct? It would be a major major deviation. They could come back with that to us. Yes. Okay. Good question.

Pardon me. Real quick like come on up. State your name and I'll give you one minute. Morris. Um yeah so I would like to propose if possible that you would grant variance subject to a condition of a removal of two or three feet whatever you require and I like that I'll leave it at that if you want but I would also say in terms of setting a pref precedence they have to show undue hardship and I think you have to make the case so I don't think that hasidence either that's what is actually allowed for in the law. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Here are your uh the commission's alternatives. You know, you you can deny the the the the variance with or without prejudice. You can approve the variance with such conditions of approval. You can approve it with new conditions of approval or if if you can continue or table the item if if you'd like. So, with what Commissioner Sperber said and Commissioner Kramer said, if we do this right now, they can still work with you guys to figure out how to make this work without destroying their house.

I believe that's correct, m Mr. Chair. Um, you know, we just heard from Terry and maybe the opportunity to reduce the size of the encroachment into the required setback. Um, should you deny it, we can continue working with them and maybe come back with a major deviation request. Okay. I think we're good with that. Commissioner, do we have any further discussion? All right, I'll entertain a motion. Oops.

Mr. Chair, I move to deny variance V25-00001 without prejudice based on my inability to make findings V1 through V4 because the property in question does not present unusual size, shape, dimension, or topography or otherwise demonstrate that compliance with the Sparks Municipal Code setback requirements present a peculiar or exceptional practical difficulty or exceptional or undue hardship. Second. All right, we got a move by Commissioner Kramer, a second by Commissioner Neberline. Any further discussion? All right, let's vote. Commissioner Reed,

I have no additional comments. Okay. Can you vote? Oh, sorry. I can't hear from the far end. I vote in favor of not approving the um in without prejudice. Hi. Thank you, Commissioner Reid. All right, the motion passes unanimously. I feel better. All right, we move on to Thank you, Scott. Yeah, thank you, Scott.

And thank you for Thank you, ma'am. Open it up comment. Yeah. Do we have any announcements? No, sir.

No announcements. All right. This is I'll open it up for general public comment. You can comment on any item. Does anybody wish to speak? Okay. I see none. I close public comment. All right. Any staff comments or

Hi, Jar. I have one that I thought of an item that is coming up to the next Spark City Council meeting. I think that's on July 28th. Uh the staff is working on an item called Main Street USA. It's an item that comes through uh Carson City Development Services. Carrie is leading up that project. It's a it's some uh funding and components that help with uh reinvigorating downtown. So, our downtown may be interested in what we present and the council votes on on July 28th regarding uh downtown. Reno has used it a few times. I believe Mindenon has used it. So, some of the communities in Northern Nevada have used it. I think it's a exciting step for our downtown or Victorian Square.

What's it called? Main Street USA. Are we changing the name from Victorian to Main Street? That's not That's not part of the plan. Have to change all your marketing. All right. Thanks, Jeff. Yes. All right. I'll adjourn this meeting.