[clears throat and snorts] >> 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. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation Mr. Clark, roll call, please. Chair Jacaman. Here. Williams. Here. Becerra. Here. Del Villar. Absent at this time. Gonfiantini. Here. Rohrmayer. Here. Velto. Here. Mr. Chair, you have a quorum of the Reno City Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Clark, and right back to you. A3 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 3 minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter not 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 3 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. 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 requests 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 moved. Commissioner Williams, second. First and a second, all in favor say I. 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 Rohrmayer, 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. Uh, 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 LDC26-00051, Highland Tentative Map Time Extension. We'll begin with a presentation from staff. Miss MacAdam. Good evening, Commissioners. Grace MacAdam, senior management analyst, for the record. I'll wait for my presentation to come up. I'm here to present the Highland Tentative Map Time Extension. So, this body's seen a few of these come forward. Um, this is a request for a time extension to an already approved tentative map, which case number was LDC2600003. Um, this tentative map is located north of Sky Vista, kind of by just around that Walmart that's up there. Uh, it includes about 290 or 219 single family lots, 288 multi-family lots, and about three just under 4 acres of a commercial area. So, this map is set to expire in November. Um, approval of this request will grant them a 2-year time extension. That's the presentation. Um, the recommended motion is on your screen. Um, approval of this request, like I said, will grant them a 2-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 MacAdam. 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. Compatic over right now. One second, Mr. Compatic, we'll be pulling up your presentation. >> little pause when your broadband is a panelist Ken. Can you all hear me okay? Yes, we can. Thank you very 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 at 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, if you please. And so there is gives again a little bit different perspective. You can see the tow boat some of the shadowing in the background. I just got cut off. Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you. Right. Yeah, that's something something about a decoder. I never trust how technology is really working and still I get until I get affirmation. Um so you know, we worked, uh, for a year on this going back 4 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 is simply been it's a really, I think, a wonderful project, small lots, good use of the land. You got them old 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 3 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 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 2-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'd 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 Gonfiantini, read and reviewed the materials. Uh, Commissioner Jacaman, on this matter I sought guidance from legal counsel. I am currently working on a project in Washoe 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. Compatic, he frequently consults on project decisions which involve me. Here, I do not have a commitment in a private capacity to the interest 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 Rohrmayer. Commissioner Becerra, read and reviewed the material and I am familiar with the site. And Commissioner Rohrmayer, 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 Becerra. Great, thank you. Hey, John, good to have you in the inner webs here. Just a couple Yeah, yeah. Just a couple quick ones since the Yeah, yeah, since the November 22nd, has there been any significant changes to the transportation network in the North Valleys that you're aware of, like along Lemon 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, it'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, but let me know 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 2-year time extension. Um, there's no findings in this case, so it's essentially a procedural matter. Okay. All right, that sounds good. All right, thanks, John. That's all I have. Thank you. Commissioner Veltri, 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 Veltri, 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 statute. There's 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 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 I'm happy to make a motion. Okay. Please proceed. >> Go ahead. In the matter of case number LDC 26-0051, uh, based upon compliance with the with NRS 278.360, >> [snorts] >> uh, I move to approve a 2-year time extension for the Highland tentative map and conditional use permit subject to the original conditions of approval. Mr. 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 inclu- that concludes item C1. Thank you, Commissioners. Have a good hearing. This is, uh, Commissioner Becerra, just a quick side note here, more of a, uh, maybe to assist, uh, Commissioner Veltri [clears throat] 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 you might want to fix that for a moment. I was trying to be undercover. >> [laughter] >> Thank you, Commissioner Becerra. You're you're very welcome. Thanks so much. We'll pause for a minute. >> [cough] >> Item C2. This is a staff report for possible action LDC 26-00052. Uh, Mendoza side setback deviation. For this, we will begin with a presentation from staff, Ms. MacAdam. Good evening again, uh, Commissioners. Grace MacAdam, senior management analyst for the record. And now I will switch gears and discuss the Mendoza side setback deviation case number LDC 26-00052. So, the subject site is located in Ward 4 on Scottsdale Road. That's north of North McCarran and southeast of Clear Acre. The applicant is requesting a major deviation to reduce the required side yard setback from 5 ft 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, uh, 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 ft 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, um, more than sufficient parking on site. Uh, and then like I said, the hillside in the back of the yard will remain undisturbed. You can kind of see the contours there at 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 abutting 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 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 Veltri. Commissioner Veltri, no disclosures. Commissioner Gompf-Tintner, read and reviewed materials. Chakman, no disclosures. Commissioner Williams, read and reviewed material. Becerra, I have read and reviewed material and I am familiar with the site. >> [snorts] >> Uh, Commissioner Rohrmayer, 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 3 minutes. Uh hi. Um, it's more so just a question. Please state your name for the record. Uh, Min Swan. Uh, yeah, I'm actually speaking 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 on the 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 Veltri. Can 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're we review all requests on their own merits, 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 2 and 1/2 ft is is not appropriate? I'm just trying to gauge like we're getting really close to if that's a 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's 7 ft 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 yeah, it's 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 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 or lighting on this side." And so, aside from building in that flexibility in code, it allows us to have each request and look at them, like I said, on their own merits. Apart from maybe just making the side yard set back 2 and 1/2 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 Becerra. Great, thank you. Hey, Grace. Um uh kind of build upon that line of questioning. Um You know, one of the 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. 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 5-ft 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 to any addition placed here. Um We also looked at redesigning it so that they wouldn't have to do a 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 and 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 manufactured, 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 did it does help. Thanks, Grace. Um I'd like to have another question here about that folks chime in as well, other folks. But, a quick side note as well, I think on the webinar chat, Commissioner Romar mentions that there was no disclosures cuz there's there was some audio issues or something. So, just just for the record, Mike. Commissioner Romar, if you have any disclosures, please feel free to to add to anything you intended previously. I do not have no disclosures. I'm not sure if you can hear me. We can hear you now. Perfect. Any other questions from the commission? Uh Commissioner Becerra, I'll take one more, I suppose. Um I the there was another comment that expressed concern, Grace, that this might become a Airbnb or short-term rental. And I know that was kind of a hot topic last year or last 18 months. Uh since then, does the city regulate short-term rentals in SF8 zones? No, 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 intense 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. Um and so, that's just not a piece that we currently >> Consider. 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. Uh Commissioner Williams, I'm happy to make a motion. Please proceed. All right. In the case of LDC 26-00052, 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. >> [clears throat] >> Commissioner Gonfiantini, I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say "Aye." Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. That concludes item C2. Grace. >> Item C3, staff report for possible action. This is a recommendation to City Council, LDC 26-00003, Clear Acre Commons Master Plan and zoning map amendments. Good evening. This is my last one for the night, I swear. Grace MacLeod again, senior management analyst, here to present Clear Acre 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 Clear Acre and 395. The applicant [snorts] 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 mixed-use suburban, and also a tier amendment from tier two to tier one. So, I wanted to first start by offering a little background. The 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. Ms. MacLeod, 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 second? We're going to go through disclosures and then we'll proceed with your presentation. Uh Commissioner Velto. Yes, thank you. >> [snorts] >> Uh pursuant to NRS 281A.420 of the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, I'm required to disclose a potential conflict of interest before any discussion, vote, or action is taken on the Clear Acre 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 relationship constitutes a commitment in a private capacity to the interest of the applicant. Because the applicant has a direct pecuniary and business interest in the outcome of the Clear Acre project now before this commission, my profess- my private professional relationship with the applicant could reasonably be 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 Gonfiantini, no disclosures. Uh Commissioner Jackaman read email from the applicant. Uh Commissioner Williams read and reviewed material and familiar with the area. Commissioner Becerra read and reviewed material and I'm familiar with the project site. Commissioner Romar, no disclosures. Okay, that we heard 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. Among other things, this agreement required them to build at least 400 affordable units and 240 workforce 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 [clears throat] is surrounded by TMCC, residential, and the freeway. It's within a half mile of neighborhood centers and Clear Acre is considered an arterial. 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 Reimagined Reno Master Plan document. So, we're also looking at a zone change from mixed-use suburban and SF3 to all mixed-use suburban. So, you can just see that it's kind of a lot of the site is already zoned mixed-use 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 needed 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 mixed-use 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, Mr. Chair. Good evening, Planning Commission Chair. My name is Brooke Oswald. I'm with the Rett Group 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 high geotechnical report, hydrology report, traffic report, and sewer report coming in. So, those would be in the future. This is right now is that suitability of the land for the zoning. We're pulling up right now. So, 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 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 this group of housing that that is is is through this facilitated through the zoning 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, Commissioners Becerra and Romero, could you please confirm that the online the presentation's now showing? We we appear to have a problem with that. I can see the I can see you all from the dais and the presentation before you like or behind you. Why don't we hold for 1 minute to get that cleared up and then we'll proceed. My apologies. It's back up now. Okay, let's proceed. The location and context Grace went over that really quickly. It is 27.3 acres. Currently, it's six parcels. You are seeing the TMC campus up above fair amount of hillside going up that way, but down on our side is suitable for development. We are the public quasi public quasi public single-family neighborhood is what we currently are in master plan or zoning is mixed-use suburban and SF3 that's single-family three units per acre. And there is that economic development and purchase agreement that is there. That sets a number of terms as Grace said that the property was sold and as part of that sale of that property of the city to to the developer, they have to build certain things. Quickly go into the Building and Construction Trades Council in Northern Nevada. They are nonprofit group. They do mentoring, apprenticeships, and another and so we'd anticipate future development actually would help 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 applicant 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 for affordability covenants. Those have to be held for a minimum of 30 years. So, that's extensive period time that those will remain in that. The integration of neighborhood serving amenities and infrastructure. We'll see infrastructure improvements. As showed on Grace, there's a dot there where anticipating a new water to Tumwater tank going in there that would service project, but also helps create that redundancy to other neighborhoods. 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 mixed-use development. That's just so everyone has that's 395 in the Clear Acre Road. Our master plan amendment, we are looking to go from the public quasi public to the single-family tier. So, as we look at that we would bring that all into that suburban mixed-use master plan. As you can see, we do have bits of that surrounding the area in kind of a mosaic of different zonings there, but MF30 and that MFC 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. This helps us to support compact growth and infill development and it's using that existing urban services efficiently. We already have we're already providing police and fire and those other services in that in this area. Facilitate and coordinate the mixed-use 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 policies and those are those more short-term policies that the city's really looking on. One of the main ones being of affordability of housing and homelessness. And then So, kind of running through those. This integrates it's a interesting sort of the sustainable and equitable development principles. And then we're ensuring that long-term community benefit through that strategic site planning and adherence to the infrastructure capacity. Our zoning map amendment we are looking to bring half the site below under half the site uh equivalent to the the MS zoning that's already applied to the site. This helps us to with the SMU to implement that. Those are our conforming zoning under that SMU master plan. It provides that predictable regulatory framework and and 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 with some of the requirements through the agreements. Support coordinate and compact the walkable development. As we see, this will be sort of a community in and of itself with the city requiring certain amenities, connectivity, parks, recreational things happening within the development. And supports that compacted growth and infill development. Although this is just out that McCarran Loop and we're often looking at infill in the McCarran. This is really just that that step that moves through the next stage. Um with [clears throat] that that that city of the development I have had was mentioned in the staff report. And and I have had meetings with the director and staff at Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency. This will require a tier change as shown from the email correspondence. 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 compact growth and infill policies. And then advancing the city housing economic development objectives. 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 the public-private kind of partnership that's been established here. Just to reiterate once again, we have the development agreement. It establishes 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 stimulus we'll see through construction and the long-term community invest investment. We did do a fiscal analysis on this property and it showed a positive net revenue projected for the city through taxes, fees, and impacts. And 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 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 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Sue Morrison. I have never spoken to you guys before, so hello. I live on Ridgecrest Drive. It's a stone's throw from Clear Acre and Scottsdale. They are proposing at least 600 more units in that incredibly incredibly congested area. Um [snorts] 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 Clear Acre. For some reason, the RTC has taken away the merge lane. I don't know why, but it's now immediate uh metered immediate merge. And then a couple hundred feet later is that immediate merge with the McCarran traffic. And it is a mess. Um the only positive thing I can see about this is if it's 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 left-hand 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 cuz 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 Clearacre onto 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 I'll start. Please proceed. Um Let's talk about traffic. Who wants to handle that? Grace? Brooke? >> [snorts] >> 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 and the best that you know, we understand and and are given the information. Our general review criteria discusses mitigates traffic impacts. Mhm. 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 cuz 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 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 into 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 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 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 plan review is triggered, we'll 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 >> [snorts] >> Grace did a great job and she she did she was gracious enough to pinch hit for me tonight. I actually wrote the staff report. We'll be presenting this to Council so >> 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 will identify any improvements that need to be made um and 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 not exist? >> plan amendment zoning app 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 >> [clears throat] >> 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? Cer- certainly. Yeah, so you can state for the record, we can convey that to Council when we present. >> Okay. Great. Thank you both. Commissioner Becerra. Great, thank you. Um and I guess now that we know Mike wrote this, might be geared towards him, but uh whoever wants to take it, I guess I they do 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 elaborating on that? Like from a planning standpoint, wouldn't wouldn't an SPD have provided the tailored development standards and phasing requirements, community amenities that MS zones by right multi-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 did 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 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 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 we have a good understanding. Um what why did you or your your you know, your uh client want to pursue an SPD? What was there something that was hoped for that would be a benefit maybe to the project and the surrounding residents or the area? Uh Brooke [clears throat] Haswell 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 conti- it it could move in a different way versus an SPD, you've pretty much locked in how it would move in that in the direction it would have to take. Okay, great. Thanks thanks, Brooke. Now 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 apprenticeship training requirement during construction, would you mind describing the with the workforce development component more detailed in how it will be structured? Um you know, we actually have a representative 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, 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 a do some changes on. Uh we do have a 20% apprenticeship requirement on that project. So, like any project any any 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 apprenticeship program. 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 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 multi-family project than it is to actually throw them on uh Google or switch or a big job like that where you know safety could be an issue. So, we see you know this as a uh 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 built 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 called the park apartments. It 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're able to partner with RTC in 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 we continue we you know our plan is to continue with our work around affordable housing because it's 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. Yep. Commissioner Becerra. Yes. Um and I think this will go to staff um preface with 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 Becerra 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 the building permit review. Excellent. Thanks Mike and just uh follow up it to switch lanes a little bit and I think this hopefully might help satisfy Ms. 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 SF5 single family to the east across Clear Acre 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 SMU-MS 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 Clear Acre 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 lob 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 think over um our our colleagues over at TMRPA recommended requesting specific comments from TMWA um regarding future water infrastructure plans given the adjacent TMWA owned parcel. Were those comments obtained? Yes. In that the TMWA'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, it TMWA 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 Jackaman 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 this forward if they meet those triggers that will occur. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Becerra. Uh thank you but you know I I can hold off if others have questions first though. Please proceed. Okay. Fantastic. Um So, the the staff mentioned that the NAB meeting was canceled due to inclement weather I think it was a snowy days but it was and it's rescheduled for the 19th which is tomorrow. Um Does staff have any concern about the commission acting before the NAB has 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 uh for a couple reasons. The applicant also held their own neighborhood meeting and I'll let them speak to that. So, there were 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. Then then if the applicant wants to speak to how that their own NAB went. >> [clears throat] >> Uh Brooke Oswald for the record. Uh yes last uh Tuesday March 12th we held 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 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 we're 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 generator 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 approximate? Sure. I think, you know, one of the large employers that we're seeing in in 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 janitorial staff 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 know, 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 395, 80, and to move to to several employment areas throughout the region. Okay, great. So, 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 land holder 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 [snorts] careers and and other things. So, uh I'm 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 dual support of both those systems. Okay, thanks, Brooke. And since you did mention TMCC, I guess I'll just throw out there 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. Thank Thank you 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. Uh 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 Jacaman, I'll I'll say So, I've only been on this commission for roughly 1 year, and I've seen a number of applications. I'm sort of curious as we go through deliberation from Commissioner Becerra, Commissioner Romair, uh Commissioner Velta, we can't lean on uh for this item, but the um the 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 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. Yes. Commissioner Becerra. 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 uh kind of put us in a place to really weigh out uh you know, some some tradeoffs, 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 site 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 I without that context that Mike provided, I would be very hesitant to move this forward without that. Um I I guess the only other 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 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 is a uh master plan amendment and 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 um of previous action that has been taken, the 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 Romair. Yes, thank you. I'd say there's um yes, we've been on I've been on the commission for almost 3 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 for the apprenticeship, um affordable and workforce housing, much needed, 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 uh I I I'm 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 and 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 very much in place to help people get up to school, um and to route people in creative ways that don't involve single drivership. 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 if that gets boosted to a CUP um or some sort of tentative 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 Becerra. Uh thank you, Chair. Uh yeah, just wanted to um share additional thoughts. I think earlier was uh respond to your your uh public question. And um you know, I 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 re-looking at some of this this material and you know, we there's a city and NNB 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 or 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 that thank you, Commissioner Rohrmayer, for uh outlining what the precedent has been 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 to make that finding at the master plan amendment stage given that staff's telling us this will definitely occur before building permits, and you will also um cuz cuz you you you know, now 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 Becerra. Chair, 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. Just just one. >> Okay, good. Okay good. So, based upon compliance or let me reference the code or the case number. In the matter of LDC 26-00051, I move to adopt this map. No no no. I'm sorry. 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 are being stacked here. All right. In the matter of LDC 26-00003, Clear Acre Commons 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 Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission Governing Board approvals. Make them make the findings. Commissioner Williams, I'll second. We have a motion [snorts] and a second. I will just add in discussion here. I this body is obviously recommending that we have a few differing perspectives there from Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Rohrmayer. Uh it may be a value to the applicant to uh you know, have a have a further follow-up discussion with staff before this progresses to council cuz council may not view the interpretation of the findings that I'm following from Commissioner Rohrmayer 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 5-0 with one abstention from uh recusal from Commissioner Velto. That concludes this item. We will wait for Commissioner Velto to join us in chambers. Next item is C4. This is a staff report for possible action, case number LDC 26-00049, 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 I'm sorry. Um in any case, uh the Jeff Foster, associate planner, for the record, bringing you LDC 26-49, again, Aspen View Drive rear setback deviation. The project site is about 0.11 acres in size located at 5142 Aspen View Drive, about 315 ft north of Sky View Drive, and this is north of Man and McCarran, 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 eight 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 and 1/2 ft second-floor deck or balcony uh to the rear of the home without approval. Uh and that uh deck and balcony as you can see 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 6 ft, which is a deviation of 30%. Regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses, uh the surrounding parcels are developed with similar one- and two-story 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 uh the windows that existed prior to the balcony are essentially the same. Um likewise, some neighbors can see into the applicant's backyard from their uh second-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 [snorts] 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 Mohammad Islam. I live in uh 5142 Aspen View Drive. I am a senior software engineer at IGT. Uh in Reno, Nevada. I hold an electrical engineering degree uh from the University of Nevada, and I have completed my MBA and from the UNR 2014. I also proudly served in the United States Navy for 4 years from '91 to '94. Uh I am here to request approval for rear setback deviation for my existing balcony, which currently is 14 ft uh setback resulting in 6 ft shortfall from the required 20 ft setback. In my presentation tonight, yeah, I will outline the circumstances the that lead to this condition, demonstrate how the existing balcony condition met the intent of the development standard, and explain why my request deviation will not create any adverse impact to the neighboring properties. Uh uh >> [clears throat] >> So, here is I'll show some slide here. So, this is my existing balcony, 10 ft or 12 ft. The required 20 ft setback, as already Jeff mentioned, distance from the rear property line uh from the post to the balcony is 14 ft. Deviation request is 6 ft shortfall. Uh rear house wall is 25 ft, that's it is compliant. So, request is to legalize existing structure, no expansion proposed. Why the deviation is needed? I was unaware the permit deviation was required, complied immediately once I notified. Only the support post created 14 ft measurement and household is compliant. Object is full compliance through permit inspection and code corrections. Modest size does not block any views or sunlight, doesn't create any new privacy condition. Uh second floor windows sightlines already exist in this neighborhood. Um And there's a plan staff 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 6th. Uh updated character plan was provided. Neighbor support letters was provided. Reno Fire Department noted no conflict uh 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 mean this short way 6 ft and this Reno city required is 20 ft. So here's the this example for the rear view window actually for every every two-story house on our neighborhood. So there's a there is a back window. So you can see the same view uh same as from my balcony. So there's a my that's the 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 uh 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's 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's not much difference. It's almost the same. So this is my left side house in uh 5136 Aspen View Drive. Uh so 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 Driftwood 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 Driftwood Avenue. So left picture is from the balcony and right picture from my behind the windows. So neighbor support summary is 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 signed the letter. One neighbor said they want to come and speak but I'm not sure if he's here or not. So those are the my four surrounding neighbors who live 5136, 5146 Aspen View Drive, 5145, 5141 Driftwood 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 6 ft 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 1 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 Gonfiantini, no disclosures. Commissioner Jackman, no disclosures. Commissioner Williams, read and reviewed material. Uh Mr. Reed, reviewed material and I am familiar with the area. Commissioner Romier, same disclosures. We will now move to questions from the Commission or entertain a motion. I'm sorry. I'll have a comment. Mr. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have um people registered for public comment on this item. We will begin with Travis Skaggs. Travis, please approach the podium, state your name for the record. You will be afforded 3 minutes. Um my name's Travis Skaggs. I live at 5139 Driftwood, which is kitty-corner behind him uh the applicant. Uh I find his pictures and uh >> [snorts] >> his statement that there there's no concerns to be a bit misleading. Um It's one thing to look out of a window um occasionally on the second floor and look out. It's another to be out on a deck or time and these properties are 10th of an acre. We're on top of each other. They're close. Um the they're Z lots. 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 is only barely shown in those pictures. Uh but he can see me in 3/4 of my house, which you know, it's 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 and looking down. And you can see more of those um those yards. Uh I do apologize. I'm a little It's all right. nervous here. Um also it's I find it difficult to uh go with the fact that 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 to now he's saying that if you know, he did it all right. But what if? Um I I don't want to cast that you know, I do not know the man. Uh but he got caught. Um also that his that his statements that all of his neighbors didn't have a problem is not true. I spoke to a 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. We're still on public comment. So we've got to Can I ask just one question of the gentleman? What was the last address that you gave? Uh 5 I believe it's 5142 Aspen. Don't see a 51 >> 5146. >> 5146. Thank you, sir. >> Yes. I I have his statement that Mr. Clark, next public comment, please. Up next we have Donna Keats. Donna, please approach the podium, state your name for the record. You'll have 3 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 uh 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. At there's 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 being taken into account. Like this gentleman just said 14 ft out standing on the edge of the railing 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, mea culpa? 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 going 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. You go, "Oops, I'm in the setback, but dang, my garage is already there. So, let me go fit to fix it retroactively with no penalty. No fees for being stupid. No fees 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 past, past, past. 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 6 months later. Oops, on my You know, it's true. You got caught. Maybe I'll get caught someday and I'll have a different story cuz I'll be sorry I said this. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Donna. Up next we have Beth Story via Zoom. Beth, you should be able to unmute. Please state your name for the record. You'll have 3 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 5-ft setback. In 2020, there was a fire and since the firemen could not access their backyard from their side, they accessed 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 line. 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 owners' property. In Newlands, 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, back setback. For the city not to advise homeowners to seek who seek to reduce their setbacks not to consult their title documents is irresponsible at best. Did I make it in 3 minutes? You have 17 seconds. Oh my gosh. Thank you. Thank you, Beth. Mr. Chair, additional correspondence was received for this item. These were forwarded to the planning commission and 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 Becerra. Okay. Thank you, chair. Um Yes uh Jeff, I'm happy Jeff, this 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 sight lines from the balcony were being substantially similar to those from the home's 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 adjacent looks through. How 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 Becerra. 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 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 variant of a balcony, um what would be the specs or size be before it would require deviation and and why would staff, you know, limit the the size of it beyond that smaller version? >> so uh 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 it 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 5-ft deck or balcony and not had any issues. Um so >> Okay. Yeah. All right. Just just a couple of quick follow-ups and I'll I'll let you back, but um uh I guess the quick one. Did I think the the Ward 5 NAB meeting was canceled for this one, too, by Councilmember Reese and so similar to the previous case tonight, does did 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 canceled? I think I think it was March 10th, right? 12th? It was the one that was actually canceled. Okay. I I believe it's in the report anyways. Yeah, that to to add to that, the staff report says March 10th, Councilmember Reese canceled the meeting. Okay. Okay. Yeah, thank you for the clarification. So, um did we have any concerns about moving forward without the NAB's input? Um 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 council member Ebert specifically told my applicant or the city's applicant that I'm working with that she didn't need to see it at her ward. So, you know, there are different situations where you know, a case does not go to a NAB. And you know, in in situations like that it's out of the hands of the of the applicant to you know, to to make that presentation. Okay. And in a way in a way this evening we we sounds like from what I'm hearing and from what I'm seeing that we do have a kind of quasi NAB because we do have concerned residents and neighbors near and and you know, not too far with us tonight. So, in which I appreciate. So, thank you all for coming. It's good fodder for thought. Now, I'll yield that for now. Commissioner Argon Fiorentini. Commissioner Argon Fiorentini, 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 that'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 functions as? I I certainly cannot Commissioner Argon Fiorentini, but I'm thankful that the applicant probably can. >> Um, thank you. Uh, thank you Commissioner. Yeah, that is a Initially, I thought there is a because a lot of snow falls more than 1 ft. So, make sure the snow doesn't get stuck. So, I leave it a little blank actually. So, a little higher on that. Then I put the there is a metal string actually underneath to 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. So, we don't have any >> What are the measurements of that? Uh, I believe those are uh, probably I believe there's a 8 in so 8 in so Probably most likely 6 to 8 in high. So, now it's like 4 in. When I put the string on it. Uh But you plan to adjust that. Uh, yes, I did myself. So, I just Okay. Thank you. >> And make sure there's We don't have any kids or children. We don't have any animals either in our house. So, that's Oh And another question is my my side neighbors they're about 20 ft away from my house. So, from from my you know, from my balcony to the but and my rear only the issue with the rear setback is 14 ft. So, that's that's what I'm saying. Thank you. Uh, could Can I add something to that? Thank you. Jeff Foster, associate planner. Commissioner Argon Fiorentini, the building permit process is currently underway. So, not only did he have to retroactively seek the 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, maybe something that if this is an issue that you may want to consider adding a condition of approval that that gets addressed during the building permit process. I would think it would be addressed just as a matter of safety to your point. But there is an opportunity through the building permit process to rectify any issues like that. Uh, Commissioner Jacquemin, I'll ask one question. So, we received a number of public comments. There are 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. Commissioner Jacquemin, so certainly any entitlement that comes in fire is automatically on the review loop. So, Fire Marshall Beck is currently the reviewer of these applications and he always puts in some kind of a comment that says, you know, needs to comply with IFC or you know, sprinklers are required or whatever it is right? And for both deviations that I have for you tonight, he put in the same standard comment. So, they they do have an opportunity to review and if they do have issues, they certainly let us know and we provide those comments to the applicants. In this case, there was nothing that fire had 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 as it pertains to accessing the back. So, thank you. Uh, I believe Commissioner Beserra you had your hand raised. Uh, yes, sir. Thank you. Just had a couple follow-ups just for clarity here. Uh Cuz I'm always always trying to see where we can find middle ground here too. But 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 Beserra. 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 and he was not able to identify any. Um, I'm not aware of any specific deviations that were addressed or that came forward in this area for a balcony. Um, so yeah. Okay. And sorry, you got you guys got somewhere. Maybe even the first the fifth or whatever. But on top of that, the staff report sites I think master plan policy 4.3A retention of existing housing stock and and dash FN14 fire resistant 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 4.3A really about retaining housing stock or is it being used as a catch-all? So, can you Let's see here. So, the language of policy 4.3A is encourage ongoing maintenance and promote reinvestment and improvements in established neighborhoods for both owner and renter occupied units. So, the my my thought was that that the applicant was adding to the value of his home. He was in you know, adding reinvesting in his property. So, and to be frank Commissioner Beserra, sometimes we have to be a little creative when we're when we're trying to find condition I mean master plan policies to line up with it. Some of these very limited uh uh, requests in terms of like a major deviation, 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 you know, non-flammable surface which is why I used that one. So, Okay. Okay, great. Now, 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 volley and be on one team here and try to problem solve this. So, I appreciate the context. Thanks, Jeff. Absolutely. Uh, Chair Jacquemin, either you or Mr. Reily 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 What Where I'm going with this is we have The only reason I'm I'm leaning have been leaning that way was the surrounding neighborhoods or the surrounding neighbors all agreeing that this was fine. Um, but Mr. Skaggs 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 But 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. Did you have some letter that the applicant gave to the neighbors. Sir, can you please repeat that into the microphone? I I apologize. It's okay. >> Excuse me. State your name for the record. >> This is attached to the letter that the applicant gave to his neighbor, Gary. And the he has a statement in his submission that says his neighbor didn't say anything negative, but wasn't going to sign, was going to appear here today. He had prior commitments. I'm I mean, that's hearsay, obviously. I'm you know, but 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 Gary was very negative about this. So, we're stepping out of process here. We've heard the public comment. Oh, I apologize. This is now This letter has now been entered into the public record. >> Okay, perfect. That's what I needed to say. Thank you, Mr. Skaggs. Do we have any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Velto. Hi. Yes, Jeff, I have a question for you. Um I'm looking at the major deviations findings. 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 >> [snorts] >> um all of the major deviation recommended finding 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 um 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 jeez, 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 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 permitted, 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, and that's totally okay. I just want to voice my my thoughts. Um >> [snorts] >> 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 neighbor's 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 5-ft set a 5-ft 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 5 ft 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 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 does 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 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 in public comment um that there should be some sort of penalty in the future 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 purview right now, but that's a generally a very good idea. Uh it's something that we should look at cuz 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. 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. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Rhoadsmeier. >> [snorts] >> Yeah, this is an intro 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 work day. And so, this this really isn't acceptable. And um and to give Beth Tory 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, I think Commissioner Rhoadsmeier and Commissioner Velto 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 as-built deviations without meaningful enforcement consequences can erode public confidence in our permitting process. And then 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 in 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 catty 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 a stretch for me. Uh Commissioner Becerra. Thank you, Chair. Just because I'll try to back the the idea or maybe flag the idea at this point of a penalty as well. Not necessarily like for for this individual as much as just in general practice. Um we have been a little too Wild Westy, and uh everyone knows we we could use a little bit of revenue, and why not 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 whatever the penalty guidelines are actually ironed out in the future, kind of like a a forward-looking condition, if you will. Just think about it. 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. The 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 discernible 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 uh privacy and whatnot for the residents. So, I struggle with that one. to being smaller. And the NAB meeting was canceled. So, no organized neighbor input was received and we hadn't received clarity as to how the NAB input may have shaped staff's analysis and recommendations before us tonight. So, I'm struggling [clears throat] right in the middle. Uh Commissioner Jacqueman here. So, I have two things. First off, and Commissioner Gan Fantini, you had suggested possibly a modified motion. Some 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 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 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, [clears throat] the applicant cuz 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 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 cuz there could be other parties involved. I'll leave it at that. Commissioner Becerra. Uh your hand's down. So, we do not have any other questions. Or or do we have any other questions or deliberations from the commission? >> just make one clarification, something that Commissioner Becerra has has suggested, neither staff nor this board has the authority to levy penalties or fines outside of what is already permitted in code. And this is Jasmine Mehta, for the record. I I just want to 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, 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 one-man show, which it's not, I would I would suggest that he's put it back to the minimum or maximum that he's allowed 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. >> [snorts] >> Could could you make a modified approval to just reduce it or do you not need to because it's required 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. Okay. So, Commissioner Becerra, just one last thought. Please. Sure, thank you. Um yeah, it's a tough one. Yeah, I I I appreciate the public comment. I actually strongly agree with them and I do think that the applicant or the the owner of the home um is doing their best as well. Seems like a good faith, you know, partner player in this and trying to solve a problem. Um I think whichever way this body goes this evening for it, hopefully it's 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 is 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 going to have uh great 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, uh Mr. Foster, would you like to say something? Were you indicating there? >> if I may. Just I've had a couple thoughts that as the conversation has been unfolding here. Um first of all, regarding penalty, that was actually the reason for my attempt at drafting a condition that would limit any future impact impacts by not allowing any future deviations uh for this property. Um I hope that's legal. It passed uh >> [laughter] >> 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 neighboring properties um even closer to the you know, to the side yard property lines um than the current structure is, right? So, um just something to consider, right? As as a thought exercise. Commissioner Velt here. I'm waffling. Um I think condition number or finding number two under major deviations is a disjunctive test, not a conjunctive test. So, it does not need to be a public benefit. There only needs to be an overall design benefit. And beauty's in the eye of the beholder. I think this looks prettier. So, I can make finding two. Finding number one uh is where I'm kind of stuck. We look at it 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 the top 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 Becerra, your hand was the next the one. Please proceed. Uh sure. I I guess um really thoughtful takes there, Commissioner Velt. Um well, you know, I've really appreciated conversation tonight on this one. So, it seems like it's just one neighbor or one resident, but it definitely cascades across the community. I guess I'm I'm kind of curious and 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 cuz 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 viewed finding number one. Like like I guess my question is uh why is that or help me understand why is that because maybe I'm missing something. And and I do respect your your take. So, would you like to answer or Yeah, how how do you need to give my perspective? Sure. And this may be way too big a picture on 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 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. Uh okay, great. That that >> [laughter] >> 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 Rohrmayer. 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 might even be leaning towards a denial, that he ask 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. Continued in Uh great suggestion, Commissioner Rohrmayer. 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 after 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. Yep. 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 I'm 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 concern. So, um I do like all the conversation though. Uh Commissioner Jacquemin, 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 it 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 Jacquemin. 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 Becerra, you have your hand raised. Uh yes, I was just going to I guess follow your lead and uh I'll share in a little bit of where we stand or our thoughts. And so, I guess I'll just say uh we could all benefit from breaking bread together a bit more. So, I would agree with Commissioner Rohrmayer'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 uh you're suggesting towards a continuance there. Is that correct, Commissioner Becerra? Yes, instead of a straight denial or straight whatever. Commissioner Belto. 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 in 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 to go to the NAB. Uh For me, Commissioner Williams, um I I can't support this project. So, I do like uh Commissioner Rohrmayer's suggestion um and would lean towards that if the applicant is willing. Commissioner Rohrmayer, 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 uh 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 continuance? We we will not make a motion for a continuance 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 is uh spend probably $4,000 on my uh design engineer. I pay him $4,000. I pay $3,000 $3,100 for your this deviation fee. So, $7,000 plus there is a permit fee and 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 continuance. 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. The the the uh continuance would allow you an opportunity to meet with your neighbors as I understand the consideration. Yes. So, um 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. Sure. 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 a was approved, that approval could be appealed by one of your neighbors, for example, to the city council if they so choose. Uh for your information, can I show you something? Uh Is that a 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. Two seconds, probably. I think my neighbor the Gary is complaining so he has a covered patio. So a patio has a post. 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 let's see. Yeah, look at here. So that's my neighbor right hand Gary was complaining so he's post. So he has the covered patio. So I I I believe that's the same rule apply. His post from the property line is not 20 ft. It's the same aligned to my post. So it should be the same thing. Wait, can I ask a question? Yes, sure. We have three hands raised here. Commissioner Velt here. Okay. Is that the neighbor Yes, he's complaining. >> letter? Yes, yes, sir. Uh [clears throat] Commissioner >> rocks in a glass house. Commissioner Rohrmayer. Oh, yeah. This is getting perhaps too in the weeds for this level of commission. 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 continuance 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 I know you got up and initially and said oh, you know, I've invested $7,000. That to me is quite a substantial investment and I don't want to see you lose that. That is my personal opinion. I can't speak for others 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. Commissioner Velt this situation so that's that's definitely Sure. Mr. Becerra for the record I also echo Commissioner Rohrmayer's sentiments there. Sir, like 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 you're able to find a solution with the neighbors here and and my personal take too is like I I hope that a continuance a continuance is embraced and you can find that solution with with your your your immediate neighbors. Uh this is Commissioner Jackman. 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 the 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 Jackman. I I think that the findings as presented here they're 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 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. Just wanted to share that. Commissioner Becerra. Sure. I guess I was just I heard from the gentleman the applicant that he was open to a continuance. Is that correct, sir? Uh yes. Okay. If if that is Yes, Commissioner. Yes. Yeah, okay, great. So if that is the case 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. Jeff or sir or 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 Sure. 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 re-noticing. 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 2 weeks from When is the next one is If I could make a suggestion because this is a code compliance issue, we don't want to drag it out forever so to speak. I think the April 15th um planning commission meeting so essentially a month would be would be appropriate. Yes, sir. Commissioner Velt. 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. Just curious about that but thank you. >> Sure, sure. I'll definitely but but currently as my my my post and his post are the same alignments. If you if you look at the other picture actually so you had the almost but I'll definitely do that. Thank you. Definitely. Okay. Great. Commissioner Becerra, please proceed. Sure. Just just before I say it 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 of Commissioner Becerra for the record in the matter of LDC 26-00049 Aspen View Drive rear setback deviation I move to continue this matter until April 15th, 2026. Commissioner Velt seconds. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on this item? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. That concludes this item for this meeting. We have one more hearing. Let's take a 5-minute break and reconvene. The time is 8:26. We will reconvene at 8:31. Please return by then. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> No. 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. What's that? >> [laughter] >> We will restart the Planning Commission meeting our where we left off. We are now entering item C5, staff report for possible action in case number LDC 26 -00050. This is the Manzanita home side 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 0.27 acres. Uh it's located on the north side of Manzanita Lane about 295 ft 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 side yard setback from 5 ft 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 is 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 sq 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 sq ft bedroom playroom addition on the west side in the side yard and that's shown in the orangeish 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 sq ft within the 5-ft side yard 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 side yard 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 side yard addition which is set back approximately 50 ft 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 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 on 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 cuz 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 Olson. I appreciate being 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 going to 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 in a distraction over the last 2 and 1/2 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 COVID 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 uh cool kind of uh re- uh rebirth into the community. Um this is our backyard. These are the two trees that uh Jeff uh uh or uh 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 uh it 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 uh uh bedroom bathroom um uh uh assembly that we're uh 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 major deviations. Um, I I I do want to point out a couple of things. One, it's not like um major deviations are free. Um, not to say I I think it's a great process. I've really enjoyed my time with um 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. It's just saying I I think there's there's been a little bit of per- perception tonight that people can just kind of come in here and get major deviations like there's a lot there are 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, we did a licensed 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 uh like 6 in uh 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 uh uh a fire like that um is tragic and and I feel terrible um for her. Definitely got um the neighbor's 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 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 that we became aware of um that is 5 ft 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 in 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 community. Cool. Here for questions. Thank you. We'll now go to disclosures and then to questions from the commission. Uh Mr. Novelto, uh familiar with the area. Commissioner Gonfiantini, read and reviewed materials, familiar with the area. Uh Commissioner Jacquemin, same. Commissioner Williams, same. Mr. Beserra, same. Mr. Mayor, same. And public comment, Mr. Clerk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have one person registered for in-person public comment, Donna Keats. Donna, please approach the podium, state your name for the record. You'll have 3 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 Keats. Boy, that was a long time cuz I missed the general public comment. This sit through all of this. I wanted to tell I'm on the Ward 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 are a lot of houses in that area do have that L-shape extension like he said he didn't want to do when they expanded their houses and they are this L-shape because that was the '70s thing and that's just what they're 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 butted right up there. Personally, I'd be sort of worried about fire cuz 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. Thank you very much. That's all I have to say. 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 Beserra. Uh great. Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions, I believe. Um, and maybe this is for the applicant, Mr. Olson, or staff. Um, was any direct outreach conducted to the immediate adjacent western neighbor who I think is whose property line is probably affected by that reduced setback beyond the standard courtesy notice? And and was a support letter from that that specific western neighbor or any different neighbor? Uh yes. So, uh I spoke with uh 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 it 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 forwarded to uh to Mr. Foster and should be in the report. >> Great. Okay, great. Thanks, Mr. Olson. And I'll say that uh you getting a uh nod of approval from uh Ms. Donna Keats is is no easy feat. The bar is pretty high, so kudos there. Um, [clears throat] yeah, it's a good thing. And uh again, question for Jeff uh and maybe for you, Mr. Olson. 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 Beserra, 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. Olson and his family 18 months, right, to to essentially do a building permit, but since it seems and it it's not a a make or break it for me by any stretch. I'm just kind of curious like 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? Or you or you will be? >> on structural um engineering to put the building permit in. Um, and that's we're the the building permit uh this is Gabriel Olson for the record again. Uh the the building permit is imminent. Um, 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 uh project concurrently. Okay, great. Great. And then just one last one, I guess. Uh you know, at a 2 and 1/2 ft 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 so from a pretty narrow strip. Have you considered how you'll maintain that wall over time without relying on the neighbor's property for access? I mentioned that cuz it's been an issue with others in the in the region. Yeah, I think that it's a great point. Um I think that 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 uh 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. Olson, that's kind of uh music to my ears cuz in a in a way we talked about, you know, neighbors breaking the bread in an earlier case tonight, and uh it gives me hope. It just confidence that uh we can uh solve problems at the hyper-local level, as Commissioner Wormhoudt also mentioned. So, thank you. Uh thank you, absolutely. Any other questions from the commission? Seeing none, we will move to deliberations or I'll entertain a motion should one be made. Commissioner Veltz is ready to make a motion. Please proceed. In the matter of case number LDC 26-00050, uh based upon applies the applicable findings, I move to approve the major deviation subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Gampietini [laughter] A first from Veltz, a second from Gampietini. All in favor say I. I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none, the 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 Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission. Do we have any nominations 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. Anyway, um I I'm I'd like to speak in support of Manny as the appointee for this position. He's served relentlessly for almost 2 years as an unofficial um what do you call him? Uh 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 versed. I think regional planning deserves the most experienced people on this board that we can have because it's a complicated job. Um no slight on you. But, you know, it's a complicated job, and it requires a bigger picture history, and the longer the people have been on planning commission, they're more suited to go to regional. So, for me personally, and I probably speak for hm I'm guessing 25, 30 other people I've conversed with this about, feel really strongly that the longest-tenured 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 well prepared. 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 3 minutes. Beth, if you are Yes, we can hear you. >> Perfect. 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 for Manny, and I agree with Donna, everything 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 Veltz, you had Uh yeah, I'd like to nominate Commissioner Williams for the Regional Planning Commission appointment. Commissioner Gampietini, I 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 Jackman. I. Williams. I. Becerra. [clears throat] Is there going to be discussion after this? I chance a public public start or did we skip further discussion after public comment? Yeah, you're welcome to discuss uh explain your vote. Yes. Oh, sure. I guess I will just uh uh echo some remarks that uh I was unexpectedly surprised to hear and 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 3 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 >> [clears throat] >> my approach has been steady and independent and grounded in the adopted plans, subject to findings, and the full context with a focus on collaboration across jurisdictions and stakeholders. I submitted a full nomination let- 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 >> [clears throat] >> this will ensure that the full record allows items support a transparent informed appointment process. And in that same spirit of transparency, I 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, I'll carry on with the roll call vote, Mr. Chair. Well, 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. I was talking 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 what you need to do. >> We will halt the roll call vote, Mr. Clerk, and I cannot make the motion, so we need a motion to for discussion. Commissioner Veltz moved for discussion. Commissioner Gampietini, I 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 Becerra, oh Well, I I actually if you don't mind, I did want to I did Yeah, I I just want to, you know, respectfully insist though that I I did have a question within my state 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 3 years, it's never been highlighted directly or in presentation. And I've never 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. I would expect that alternate students receive compensation. I That's my impression. Okay. I have never just just so the record states like and and again it's just there's this uncertainty or innuendo at times and so if if you 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 >> [clears throat] >> disagreement. I I I'm struggling to understand the relevance of this to the recommendation that's uh before us on the agenda. Uh but I can speak to that. I May I weigh in? Commissioner Romire. Yes, the challenge the issue was brought to my attention a pecuniary 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 attended 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. I vote understand if there is a pecuniary interest in people I might support for the position. Just just to clarify for the record, this is Mike Realty. Commissioners are paid by the city of Reno. There is no additional compensation for being a regional planning commissioner. Can I can I weigh in 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 cuz the first time I met with Jeremy 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 Becerra self-nominated himself. That isn't being considered in light of consideration of Commissioner Williams. Now, Commissioner Williams has and it's record put forth letters and documentation that are disparaging and accusational. Uh there is no way that that would should be supported at the complex decision-making 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 pecuniary interest and that precludes me and I have to abstain from voting, then I need to know that and that is why this issue came up. Commissioner Valto, would you like to make a motion? Uh I would like to make a discussion I guess it'd be a comment. Uh I think Commissioner Williams has done an 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're 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 Becerra, 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 Becerra for the record. I'd also like to say cuz Commissioner Valto, you mentioned that uh like you made you made a 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-OK and I'm paraphrasing. So while you may disagree with the approach on disclosures, our own legal counsel is is fine with it. Uh Jeremy, >> I have a motion and a second. This is Jasmine Mehta 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. And chair chair chair >> Thank you and I think that's why we were making these remarks because it it it helps and and and it would it seems like the Commissioner Becerra 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 the additional remarks and I again appreciate the additional remarks from the broader community in support which was to my surprise and thank you and I'm proud to serve all of you. Jeremy, 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 abstention related to a fiance relationship when there is a fiance who is 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 Becerra, 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 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 meeting both by the at the dais and within the public. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? I move to postpone until April 15th. That's the second. Understood. So we have a motion and a second. Uh Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Commissioner Becerra is the mover, you are an I. Jacqueman. Nay. Gonfiantini. No. Commissioner Romire is the seconder, you are an I. Valto. No. Williams. No. Mr. Chair, the motion fails. Do we have any other motions to entertain from the commission? Commissioner Valto, I move to nominate Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Gonfiantini, 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. Clerk, can you please repeat the mover and the seconder? We have a motion from Commissioner Valto. We have a second from Commissioner Gonfiantini. This is a recommendation for uh Commissioner Williams. Please conduct a roll call vote. Jackaman. Aye. Williams. Aye. Becerra. No. Gonfiantini. Aye. Romeyer. Um it is an absolute no and I recognize that the people at the dais will absolutely approve them regardless of public comment. Valteau. Yes. Mr. Chair, the motion passes. That concludes item D1. We now move on to item E, Truckee 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 at that meeting we heard an update regarding planning efforts from the Reno Sparks Indian Colony uh presented by Candace Stowell. 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 staff. Item [snorts] 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 3 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 0003. Our good friends that want to build that big project on Clear Acre and Scottsdale. Um my first concern or an an additional concern is uh what they're calling a multi-use zoning. They're really not specific. There's they're they mention the 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 Truckee 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 Clear Acre all the way over to I guess it's El Rancho Sullivan, 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. Thank 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'll be afforded 3 minutes. Oh, okay. I made it to the end. Um [clears throat] 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. And 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 lickety-split fast, the 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 want I'm going to say the b u l l word cuz 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, well of course you guys already know this cuz 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. And 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 cuz this was not quite as offensive as the last one, but the last one, oh my god, it's a good thing I wasn't here in person. Cuz 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 adjournment adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Gonfiantini, motion to adjourn. Second. Motion and second, all in favor say aye. >> Aye. Aye. Aye. Meeting adjourned.