Okay, we will uh begin the meeting. This is the city of Reno Planning Commission meeting dated Wednesday, August 6, 2025. Uh we will start with the pledge of allegiance flagism number two. Madam clerk, Chair Jockman here. Vice Chair Williams chair. Here. Sorry. Commissioner Bera absent at this time. Commissioner Delvr here. Commissioner Gonfantini here. Commissioner Roier absent at this time. Commissioner Belvelto absent at this time. We have a quorum. Item number three, public comment. Uh, Madame Clerk, would you please proceed with this item? It should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the planning commission as a whole. Comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person 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 are called on for public comment, please state your name for the record and begin speaking. The timer will begin when you say your name and you will be afforded three minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior, and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. We did receive correspondence for this item that was forwarded to the commission and entered into the record. I also have one um request to speak form, which we'll call on now while we wait for any Zoom attendees to raise their hands. Um Tony Harsh, if you're ready, you'll have three minutes. Please state your name for the record. Tony Harsh for the record. Thank you very much for all being here. Um I'm going to address my comments under public comment about accessory dwelling units. Then I can sit down and relax. Okay. Um so um first of all, I usually tell you guys that I have been on city council. So I've heard accessory dwelling units for the last 25 years. But on top of that, I thought I should um let you know that I wear another hat currently and did even when I served. Um I am the senior vice president for a privately held held company in Southern California. We build commercial properties and we also own them. Um we are in two redevelopment agencies in Pasadena and Glendale. So when I say to you the devil is in the details, I sincerely mean the devil is in the details. I also had the opportunity to negotiate with the state of California and the city of Glendale regarding aminent domain. Uh both of which were successfully negotiated. So again, the devil is in the details. So, when we're talking about accessory dwelling units, I do not want us to end up on a slippery slope of unintended consequences to hell. So, we have an opportunity to really get this right. People will be speaking to you about all different issues. Um, believe me, I've heard them all. I've heard the goods, I've heard the bad. But the most important thing that I want to talk about today very quickly is um when you looked at this before um we talked about separate addresses for accessory dwelling units. I cannot implore you strongly enough do not do separate addresses please. Um Sparks does not do that. Wo county does not do that. Um, also how are we going to second point then I'm going to sit down. Um, how are we going to incorporate the existing ADUs into our housing stock? So, I think this is important because we do need to have them incorporated properly. Many of them were built without permits and they're there. Um, so we don't have inspections on them. We don't know if they're safe and probably not collecting property taxes. So again, devil's in the details. Thank you so much for all your hard work. Thank you. Thank you, Tony. I do not have any more request to speak forms for this item. Would you like to speak during general? Okay, we'll have one more. Beth Dory. My husband has to flip pages. I read Oops. One second, Beth. We're just working on an IT issue. There. There we go. Oh, there we go. Okay. With more infill creates more pro parking problems. Okay. And uh there are only four I'm sorry. Sorry to interrupt you. We're we're there now. We got it. Okay. Are we good? Okay. Uh there are only four code enforcement officers employed at the city. Codes protect the safety of citizens and protect property values of the neighborhood. Owning a home next door to somebody who doesn't take care of their property devalues the neighbors property. The city is reducing parking requirements but then turns a blind eye when folks park on their front yard dirt which is a violation or worse cut into the city curb and create ille illegal spot. Many residents are unaware that they are violating city codes. Many believe that since they own the property, they may do whatever they want. To educate citizens, create an online booklet with pictures to help the uh public understand that 10 to of the top 10 to 20 violations. This should reduce the time that officers have to explain to residents why they can't park their fifth wheel on their front dirt. The city code uh the city policy for code violations is complaintbased. This should change. You should educate your well- paid city staff as to what codes are so that they will see a violation. They will make a complaint. City council people, NAB people, planning commissioners should all be calling in these violations. Complaintbased equals neighbor wars. After one warning, find the violators just as you would find someone who speeds or has a parking violation. Create a quota system for enforcement officers. Please clean up these neighborhoods before you pile more people in them. This could generate millions of dollar or this could uh generate income for the city which is or will be $25 million in debt. Thank you. And the a lot of people don't realize that these streets are too narrow. I think maybe David does. These many of these streets in Old Reno are too narrow to allow parking on both sides. They should be striped and um I think that should be addressed too. That's a life safety issue. Thank you. [Applause] I do not have any more public comment cards. Any any requests online to speak? None of the Zoom attendees have their hand raised. Okay. Uh hearing none, then we will move on to item number four, approval of the minutes. For this item, we have two uh sets of minutes to approve. So item 4.2, uh Reno City Planning Commission, June 18th, 2025 minutes. Uh do I have a motion to approve these minutes? Motion to approve. Commissioner Williams for the record. Commissioner WR second. We have a motion in a second. All those in favor? I I I I Motion carries unanimously. Item number 4.3, Reno City Planning Commission meeting minutes for July 16th, 2025. Do we have a motion for approval of these minutes? Commissioner Williams, for the record. Motion to approve. Commissioner Delvier, I second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. We will now move on to item number five, public hearings. Uh 5.1. We have a staff report on accessory dwelling units, case number TXT24-00002. Do we have a presentation from staff to begin this item? Yes. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Grace McAdin, senior management analyst for the record, and I'm here to discuss accessory dwelling units. So, to start, I'd like to talk about the process we've already done. Um, I'm some of you were on the commission when we actually I don't know that any of you were on the commission when we started this in 2023. Um, but we have been going through this process since 2023. It's one of the longest, most comprehensive public processes we've ever gone through. And then ADUs is a topic as Tony mentioned we've been talking about for 25 years. So this we're we're almost to the finish line, but I would like to highlight the process we've gone through um and kind of where we're at in that process. So as I said in November of 2023, city council initiated a text amendment to allow ADUs. In January of 2024, there was a survey conducted before an ordinance was ever drafted to see how do people generally feel about ADUs? What are their concerns? What are their issues with them? In March of 2024, staff brought these survey results to city council. We got over 2,000 responses. Um we said, "Would you like to continue to move forward?" Generally, we got some, you know, some good feedback about ADUs. We we've seen some concerns as well, and we could um try to mitigate and incorporate those into this draft. In July of 2024, council had requested we go back to council to discuss some specific regulations they would like to talk about. And then in January through March of 2025, we finally drafted that ordinance. We went to get some public feedback. In March of 2025, we came to this body, we presented that draft ordinance, and we got feedback on that ordinance. Then in April of 2025, we went to city council, gave them your feedback, gave them the feedback of the community, and we gave them that draft. So, we said, "Here's all the feedback on this draft ordinance." Um, they gave us some good feedback. They um requested some edits which we'll talk about um in detail and they also requested that they get a formal recommendation from this body. Then in July of 2025, Assembly Bill 396 was passed and signed into law and so we'll talk about that into in detail as well. So that's where we're at currently. Tonight, we'd like to get a formal recommendation from this body on this proposed on this specific proposed draft ordinance and then we're hopeful in September of 2025 or this year to go to city council for a rec um for an adoption. So, we're almost to the finish line. All right. So, this body reviewed a draft ordinance in March of last year like I talked about um and city council saw that draft. Let's talk about what's changed since this body saw it and since city city city council saw it. So, as I said, city council made some recommendations. Um, staff incorporated those recommendations into this this particular draft ordinance, and then AB396 was signed into law. What this does is it requires local jurisdictions to adopt an ADU ordinance by July of 2026. Otherwise, they're allowed every everywhere with no regulation. So, it's super important. I mean, we've been going through this process since 2023. It's not going to make everybody happy, but it's better than just having everyone have a blank blanket approval. Um, and I would like to mention, we'll talk about this in detail, but we worked at length with the bill drafters and creators um to make it as lenient as possible. When the draft originally came out, it was very aggressive. Um, it had some very specific regulations we had to me meet um and we scaled that back significantly. So, we did lobby hard to make sure that there was less oversight from the state. Um, and this is kind of what we ended with. And then let's talk about the changes that specifically that council requested we make to this ordinance. Height was a concern that's been brought up a couple of times. Um, council wanted us to see wanted to see that it would be shorter than the primary structure. Um, we have very specific regulations of how height is regulated currently in our code and so we feel comfortable we will be able to measure that. I know that was one of the public comments that was sent to you guys. Lot size was reduced. Originally, the lot size proposal was 9,000 square feet feet. We got um tremendous amount of feedback that people did not like that because it prevented them in infill locations. And so, we did an analysis and um to look at these infill areas um and generally 5,000 square feet seemed to be a more appropriate lot size. Um, and that was kind of directed from council uh as to what they would like to see and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a bit. And then short-term rentals. So, that was something that council had concerns about. We already have a definition of transient lodging, which is 28 days. And so, they wanted to see some restrictions there. And then they also wanted us to add in some additional design standards. All right. So, AB396, which um it it's a kind of threw a wrench in the process a little bit. Um it ties our hands for a few requirements um that we have to incorporate or we can't regulate in this draft. And so, this is nothing that we have say in. This is state law. We have to follow these restrictions. So, the the bill requires that we cannot prohibit separate kitchen facilities for the ADU. We cannot require any more than one parking space per ADU. We cannot require any side or rear setback larger than that of the primary structure. And we cannot require any improvement or repair to a public street unless necessary. We cannot prohibit the owner from using the ADU for long-term rental housing. So those are non-negotiable. We have to include in this draft and this particular ordinance does meet all of those. So now let's talk about the key components of this particular draft. So we have lot size, parking and design, number and dimensional standards, and then we also have short-term rentals. And so we'll talk about each of those. Lot size, as I said, uh council and feedback from the public was that they generally thought that was too large of a lot. Um 9,000 square feet was too large of a lot size minimum. And so we did change that to this draft to 5,000 square feet based on that feedback from council. You can see on your screen, this is kind of just a neighborhood I think we're all familiar with on the corner of California and Arlington as to what that might look like. I know that there's been some recent concern of that's too small. Um, you wouldn't even be able to fit an ADU on my in my yard. We have other things that can protect your um lot. I guess there's other standards. There's setbacks. There's lot coverage. And so, they still have to meet all of those things. So the ADU doesn't just get a free pass to build whatever they want. They still have to meet all of the other restrictions and requirements in our code. Um and if they can do that with a 5,000 foot lot, then they can do it. Parking and design. So parking was another um thing that I got a lot of feedback on and a lot of concerns with where are these people going to park? If you build an ADU, where are the people living there going to park? Um, we proposed in the last draft as well as with this draft to require one off- streetet parking space per ADU. So, it has to be designated for that accessory dwelling unit based on AB396. We can't do any more than that. So, it's one or nothing. Um, so we're regulating to the maximum extent possible there. Design council wanted us to add in some design standards. We've we've got so much mixed feedback from design. Um, we added in the design standards that we currently have in place for guest houses. We thought that makes sense, right? Because these guest houses are probably going to get converted to ADUs. Um, they should have similar types of standards. We have recently got complaints of that they're very difficult to meet because it requires similar roof pitch, similar materials, and so maybe it'll prohibit a super modern accessory dwelling unit in a neighborhood that maybe isn't super modern, but maybe we like that. So, I've gotten so much mixed feedback on on those standards. Um, we could add in some flexibility if that would be the recommendation of this body. Currently in this draft, there's no flexibility. You have to meet those design standards. Number and dimensional standards, one per accessory dwelling unit. That hasn't changed. Um, as we discussed, the height council recommended maybe making that smaller than the primary structure so that you can't, you know, if you're walking on the street, you're probably not going to notice these ADUs. We, this won't allow for necessarily garage overs, which might be a concern. Um, but it does definitely help with that compatibility and and kind of blending into a neighborhood. And then setbacks based on 396 AB 396. We can't require anything larger than that of the primary structure. It varies per zoning district, but um, generally I'd say your side and rear setbacks are going to be 5T. Short-term rentals. This was something that came up a lot through the public feedback process. Um, based on AB396, again, we can't regulate that they be um, anything more than 28 days. And the where we get that 28 days is state law as well as our code defines transient lodging as 28 days. So, a short-term rental is anything less than 28 days. Um, and so again, we're regulating to the maximum extent possible by saying you can't rent these out for any less than 28 days. We can't do anything else. So 28 days or less. Um, we're doing the maximum that state law will allow us there. All right. So I I don't want to, you know, skip the amount of public outreach and um feedback that we've gotten through this process. Um, I mean it's one of the most robust processes we've ever done that I've ever done. Um, we've gone to the NABS, we've done stakeholder meetings virtually, media coverage, press releases, emails, social media posts, planning commission, city council. Um, I' I'd hope that whether you like it or not, you know it's happening at least. Um, so that's a win in my book. And then I just want to remind this body, especially because I don't think any of you were on the body the last time we saw this. So, just kind of what the general feedback was. Um, oh, Chair Dman was on. I apologize. Uh, there was some general support to remove the minimum lot size. Um, and then there was some mixed opinions on removal of design standards and then removal of minimum parking requirements. And so, that's kind of where this body there wasn't a formal recommendation, but generally that was the feedback that we got. And so, for this particular motion, we will need a formal recommendation. So, anything that you would like to add to the ordinance, you will have to put in your motion. But that's my presentation and I'm available for any questions. Okay, we will move to public comment on this item. We will start with Connie Sylvea. Please, uh, you have three minutes. Please state your name for the record. Hi, I'm Connie S. Vera. Excuse me. Thank you for letting me speak today. Um, you all received probably more than one copy of my letter and my photographs that I sent out and uh, so I want to thank you for hearing this today. Um, I just want to I want to thank the story for showing a picture of my house. It was the first one and I have talked to the code enforcement officers. I am in complete compliance on that property at this time. And it showed my lovely Mustang that I'll be out that I brought with me tonight. I'll be out. That's why I'm all of this going cruising. Okay. Welcome to come join us. Um, so there's nothing wrong with my property. I have a second property where my daughter-in-law and grandchildren live and that's the property that um, you have on your pictures. I don't know if you want to show this because it's a really unusable. It It's a maintenance issue out there. Oh, I did want to back up a minute and also thank Miss Harsh for her comments on the devils in the details because that is so important here. Um because this is a great ordinance. They've done wonderful work on it and lowering it to 5,000 square feet is wonderful and the short-term rental uh limitations I think are a great idea and but we just want to be able to utilize this property that was done in the 30s. And the problem with the current ordinance is I cannot build anything in front of that um because that is the primary structure and it seems to me and it's only it's less than 600 square ft. So um it's a it's the original tiny home in Reno and so what I'd like to do in front is build a 900 foot house um which would alleviate my maintenance issues and all of those problems. Um, and this this other slide that I gave you is not to scale, but this is what I really would like the 972 square foot if if it fits within setbacks and all of that parking, you know, and if not, then we adjust it. But the problem would be the existing tiny house would be more than the 50% allowed. It would be like 61% I think of the other structure. So, I'm hoping that within this ordinance you could put some leeway or some review process that these strange lots that we have that have been there since the 30s, is there some way without a real expensive um special use permit or whatever they're called in Reno um to be able to do something a little outside the lines. And uh the other thing I wanted to mention about my own home is that we've had five cars totaled in front of my house which is why we try to park off the street and uh three of the cars were ours and then other the speeding is a real problem. I've gone to the city I've tried to get slowdown mechanisms. I'm told that it's not possible. So and you can see on the bottom of this one all the things I cannot do with that property. So, it's just a big weed problem and not the good kind of weed. So, we just need some a little bit of leeway there, a little bit of changes. And thanks again. I really appreciate your time. Next will be Greg uh Evanelto followed by John Litz and then Doug Irwin. Greg, please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. Mr. Mr. Chairman, Greg Evangelados. I've had trouble with that name as well. Um, appreciate the planning commission's time. Um, I'm here to support Mrs. SA. I've I've lived in I'm a professional city planner by training. I've lived in in Reno for 39 years. I've known Mrs. SA for 47 years. And what she's trying to do is invest in a moderate income area. And I think that's the purpose of this ordinance is to see reinvestment, the utilization of the infrastructure and uh provide a housing at a broad spectrum. And what she's pointed out in terms of uh could you kind of go back to this is that this existing house you know what we're asking for is the staff capability to look at this and say well wait a minute this is so small that this could become the ADU and this could become the primary and and yet the outcome is essentially the same. So I think you've got a lot of other homes in this uh part of the community that are also quite small and so you don't want a 230 foot ADU. So I think at least think about allowing some flexibility in terms of the implementation and again I also appreciate what the staff has done the thousands of hours and the outreach but I think you need to kind of probably program in where it's can be looked at on a case-byase basis and say is it proportional I mean this is a corner lot now is is this the front or that the front? I've been doing this for 50 years and a lot of this stuff is just look at the envelope and see how does it function and what and what are the goals that you're trying to achieve and the goals are trying to get reinvestment in these communities and provide housing where there's a gap and so I urge that you at least take this into consideration appreciate your hard work and your and your active listening. Thank you. Next we have John Litz. Please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. My name is John Litz. I live at 752 Stewart Street and I've got another property over on Carlin Street. I'd like to thank Grace. She's been wonderful with doing all the work that she's been doing and communicating through the the neighborhoods and all the people that she's been talking to. Um, I do statistical analysis for the federal government and I've looked through AB396 and compared it to what is currently proposed for ADU legislations for Reno, Nevada, and I've come up with some conflicts. Uh first of all, if a homeowner is to undergo subjective design review and pay for architectural compliance to build an ADU, it violates AB396 by uh call by for uh by right expedited approval process with minimal discretionary constraints. Number two, requiring a minimum lot size eliminates many 40 to 100 foot wide inner city lots, creating a meaningful barrier for adoption, contrary to the law's intent. Uh the current proposal for the city of Reno on the short-term rentals in relation to ADUs conflicts with the assembly bill 396 because the it propo it prohibits local governments from imposing unrelated conditions on ADU approvals such as constraints for STRs. This means that any attempt to limit STRs through ADU regulations is not only legally questionable, but it's counterproductive to the state's legislative intent. It makes more sense for an ordinance regarding STRs to be separated from ADUs from a procedural standpoint. Reno already has a robust STR community and as demonstrated STRs can coexist harmoniously with the residents of this the town. As far as uh parking is concerned, um I've gone to the planning department and uh they gave me drawing R15A and R14A talking about um 20T wide spacing in between residential parking spots. And with given the uh spacing that's in front of most houses of roughly 50 to 60 ft, you got 5 foot you're losing from setbacks, you got an existing driveway already, plus another 20 ft that's got to be in between them. It's not even going to be possible to do the parking that you guys are talking about doing. But there's a solution. And if you simply reduce that to a 5-ft spacing in between, now you've got compliance with federal ADA laws and you can leave the existing driveway alone, not incur all the cost of ripping it out and making it compliant for federal as well. Thank you. Last comment to speak for uh Doug Irwin. Uh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Dougwin and I'm a longtime resident of the Newand's neighborhood and I'm here because I care about housing, the neighborhood character and thoughtful policy that really works for Reno. Um, and let me start by saying I strongly support ADUs. Um, they're an effective uh, low impact way of expanding housing in our city. and ADUs allow homeowners to age in place, uh, support multi-generational families, and help with the rising cost of living, all while preserving the fabric of the neighborhood. And that's why I'm concerned about the proposed ordinance, um, as it's written, because it includes both a ban on short-term rentals and an acrosstheboard requirement for off- streetet parking. And these types of restrictions, um, especially when combined, are actually a deterrent to building ADUs, which and that's one of the things we want to do. So, I've operated a 400 ft unit uh cottage in my backyard with off- streetet parking for over 12 years. I live on the property that whole time, and I've never received a single neighborhood complaint. I've also contributed almost $2,000 a year in room tax to the city, which is super meaningful right now given the budget shortfalls. So, as a short-term rental uh user, it provides me the flexibility of having visiting family. Um, I've hosted my neighbors during holidays and special events and it provides essential um, extra income for my family. I work in nonprofit. Um, so these benefits matter and they disappear as soon as this ordinance moves forward as written. Um, so my suggestion is that the the city look at a a a comprehensive short-term rental policy and really address all the issues, not deal with it here. Um if if we have to deal with it here, look at dealing with it a little bit differently, making a more broad approach, which is allowing um short-term rentals in ADUs where there's a homeowner onsite. I've owned both Airbnbs in my backyard and offsite, and it's a big difference. I've never had a problem. ADUs are like 400 foot units, very small. They don't have parties. They don't have a lot of issues. So, I think if you have an owner occupied situation, it's a very different situation than if you have um short-term rentals more broadly. I do a lot of speaking, but for some reason, I'm really nervous today. Um I also am concerned about the one-sizefits-all parking requirement. I believe that parking requirement should be tailored by neighborhood, not imposed universally. And I think this aligns with the spirit of AB396, like the gentleman spoke, um, which states that the cities may require up to one additional parking spot for an ADU, but only in the event if the existing parking for the primary residence and street parking do not meet the anticipated need. So, I really think we should look at this on a case-byase basis. So, in closing, I urge you, let's not create unnecessary barriers to the very housing solution that Reno wants. Let's support ADUs, allow responsible STRs, and adopt a policy that reflects flexibility, fairness, and a long-term vision. So, with that, thank you for your consideration. Do we have any other requests to speak in chambers? I have a few more request to speak forms, chair. I'll just call those out for you. Thank you. Um, if there is anyone on Zoom who would like to speak under this item, please raise your hand. But first, we'll have Jane Taber. Please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Thank you. Jane Taber, citizen of Reno. Um, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to have something to say about this. Um, our area is up by the university. We have rentals of college students. our on street parking is absolutely unsafe and ridiculous. And also the availability to discuss in depth the difficulty of the density and then adding parking and all of these regulations seem to me to be absolutely creating a serious serious blight problem in the city. our residents residential area is no longer residential where we live. We're by the college. Um sometimes it's hard for us to even get into our driveway. Our property values we hope will be the same. Do not think these ADUs are going to do well for property values. Do not do well um if the people who are building these things are outofstate owners. They don't care about the property. They won't keep it. Okay. Um and uh the values, the taxes, the parking, the density, and the rentals all create major problems for having residential areas. Basically, the city of Reno will have no more residential area, no pure residential area. Everybody's too busy building apartments and making sure everybody every neighborhood has every little item in it that um I guess city government feels is necessary. So the neighborhood, the neighbors, the quality of life, everything goes in the tubes. You all know that for those of you who have lived here for a long time. I've been a resident of this place um this city since I was 15 years old. And so I'll just say 50 plus years I've lived here and watched this growth and it's out of control. It's all wrong and the citizens have been left behind. Truly left behind and you're going to do it again. And um I don't know what the city's going to be become. I don't know whether it's if I'm um being overly dramatic or not, but I do feel that these uh neighborhood advisory boards should be returned. They people who are going to be influ have this need to have a say in this. Again, there's no communication. Thank you. Thank you, Jane. Next up, we have Tom Taber. Tom Taber for the record. Hello, commission members. Thank you very much for taking your time out to make sure that people have someone to take a look at things and hopefully come up with the best answers. As Jane mentioned, the nabs have been removed. I think they should be replaced. That's not your job, but that's something that the city should consider again because having citizens being able to talk at the navs is is very beneficial. our block and we live two second house from the corner of Talis and Loadar. Our block until it gets down just about to tarn has seven of the 11 homes currently being rented out basically to college students. All of those homes have a minimum of three bedrooms. A number of them have four and five. There's one house that's being considered to end up being seven bedrooms because what they're trying to do is to rent an out kind of as a hotel, I guess. And they never pulled a a permit. And so that's been under discussion for over two years. But every time that we have a four bedroomedroom or five bedroomedroom home that has all bedrooms occupied, there's usually at least five cars, if not seven or eight cars. And as you may well imagine with college students that there's a few extra cars for a night or two. They all park on the street. The street parking has become a very difficult thing because a lot of them have to turn around and go up Talis or Tarn in order to find a place to park and they consume all areas on the street. That is very disconcerning for those who have single families because when you have visitors, there's no visitors available or space available. Property taxes. I understand if people have a voucher for utilizing these ADUs that they the property tax will not be charged against the property and that I believe is something that I understand the idea of it but I don't think it max makes a reasonable uh decision to the fact that other people who don't have vouchers have to pay for that. Uh there's a number of things that I think you need to take a look at again and mostly the parking and the taxes. I thank you very much. Thank you, Tom. Next, we have Donna Keats. Good evening. For the record, my name is Donna Keats and apparently I barely made it. Um, I'm here to talk about ADUs as usual. Is this If I put this right side up, can you see this? Okay. So, I sent you a letter. Um, I've got a couple things after 25 years. We're still talking about the same stuff, but um, I've put some time into this. I sent you a letter saying, "Okay, we have to write an ordinance." Because now we have AB396 that says you have to have an AD ordinance. So, we've got to do it. So I commend Grace for the changes that she's made in this version in the 18th iteration that things came out went back etc. But I think the city of Reno can and should write an exemplary ADU ordinance and I don't think we should miss this opportunity in the interest of expediency. This only has to be passed by July before you get nailed with the consequences of 396. So we have time. There are things in here that I feel very strongly need to be addressed. Well, first off, an ADU, an attached ADU is no different than a duplex. Nothing in the definitions that define them. I don't think you can pass this ordinance without making that distinction clear. That's a code conflict because um duplexes are not allowed by right in any single family dwelling, any single family zone, and in the others, they're allowed with a conditional use permit. So, you can't just say, well, hey, an attached ADU is now legal, but what about the illegal part of the Anyway, I'd like you to take a moment and consider that that code conflict should be addressed before you consider moving this forward. That's a very big deal for me. Um, and then let's see, I can't read it because I didn't bring a second copy. So, then in order to do that, I had some suggestions. There's it needs to be an objective standard that defines subordinate to the single the primary single family use. We don't have that for for attached. So you've got different things of a problem. People want to convert a basement. That's thing a people want to do an attachment to their house. How is it not going to be a duplex? Let's put something in there so that it's distinctly not a duplex. We can change the stepback requirements. If you're doing a second story, you know, move it back farther so it doesn't look like a two-story duplex. We can have thus for compatibility. Um, we can put a size restriction on an attachment. If you're going to build an attachment to your house, what's it going to be? Commonly, it's maximum of 50% of the size of your primary residence. But we don't have that in this ordinance. We have to do something or you're just creating a whole conflict. So, got to do that. Okay. Well, hopefully you read that. Got some other stuff. We need some objective standards put into the uh detached AD ADU ordinance. There's no minimum size requirement. Um they don't get regulated if they're not 200 square ft. Uh 220 square feet is is in code for um other uses. So it's got to be at least 220 feet or you're just going to have these. If you saw the thing behind me, you could see you can happily put people in something less than 200 square feet. We don't have that in there. We need to have minimum size. Um anyway, I sent you this letter. Hopefully you read it because all of these things are outlined. I think we've got a good start. I think we can do an exemplary ordinance, but the intent of title 19, one of your findings is about enhancing and preserving existing neighborhoods to make it infill development compatible with existing neighborhoods. It's one of your findings. Until you solve some of these problems, my opinion, there's no way you can make that finding. So, I'm asking you to please put some other things in here for consideration for council when it goes to council. Thank you. Thank you. I have one more uh request to speak form from Beth Dorian opposition. You did you wish to speak, Beth? Okay perfect. Okay. I'm here to speak about these CCNRs. A lot of people don't Beth Dory for the record. A lot of people don't realize and this shows this is generational. So maybe you don't understand the younger people. A lot of people do not understand that uh there are CCNRs in all parts of Reno. Um, an example of somebody who went against their CCNRs is the house on Windy Hill. It has no roof. Um, they were forced to remove it because that was in congruent with the CCNRs and Wo County actually got pulled into that lawsuit. So, I think we have to honor these old CCNRs. This is an example of a CCNR from 1928. Only single family home. Only single family home. And these are copies of these CCNRs. I spent a good portion of Friday researching everything. So, you go against that and you could be sued. There could be an injunction. The city could be pulled in. I'm not a lawyer. I think there is one in the house though. Newlands, Bates Avenue, where everybody thinks this would be the perfect place for ADUs. This is 966 Bates Avenue. Has uh CCNRs from 1946. Prohibits extra units. Here's some other ones. Chesterfield up in Northgate. The Northgate subdivision, another place that people might think that would be a perfect place for extra units, not allowed. Donner Springs on Valdez, the same thing. These are all active. What happens is if the majority of the homeowners uh keep in most cases, if the majority of the homeowners don't vote it down, they just renew in general. Am I right, Carl? Here's some more. People would think on Vouser Street right by that New Von Middle School that would be a perfect place for ADUs there. Again, these CCNRs prohibit that. Green Ridge Drive, Marthum, all of that. Oops. All right. Can we In general, CCNRs run with the land. old but active CCNRs that prohibit extra units are scattered throughout all of Reno. Regarding CCNRs and ADU by the city not having an owner who is seeking to build an ADU not sign an affidavit uh that they don't have CCNRs prohibiting these extra units expose taxpayers to possible litigation. Thank you. I do not have any more requests to speak forms and I do not have any attendees in Zoom with their hand raised. Okay, we will now close public comment on this item and we will move to commissioner disclosures. Starting with Commissioner Delvier. Uh no disclosures. Commissioner Gianiantini read all the materials, read a significant amount of feedback letters, as well as reviewed hundreds of hours of YouTube uh old city council and planning commission meetings. Commissioner Jockman, no disclosures. Uh, Commissioner Williams, I've read all the material provided by the city and uh, read also all those um, emails and communications sent to by residents. We will now move to questions from the commissioners of staff. Uh, Commissioner Delvr, thank you. So, some of these things we talked about back in March when it came before us and then I know it went back to to city council. Um, but I would appreciate if you could kind of remind me of this process because I think it also goes to what um, Beth Dory just talked about about the process and the CCRs that could potentially be uh, in jeopardy. Um, because my understanding is with this ADU ordinance, people don't need to actually get a permit anymore. They can just kind of build if they build within No. Um, I'll address a couple of the comments. So, their building code has a requirement or I guess an exemption for a structure under 200 square feet not getting a building permit. However, if you have any electrical, plumbing, any of that in there, it does have to get a building permit. And either way, it has to meet our setback and height requirements. So, even if it's under 200 square feet, um we'll often get a phone call of, hey, what are my setbacks? Because it still has to comply with those. Um, anything over 200 square f feet does need a permit just for the structure itself. Um, and then as far as the process, are you discussing like the building permit, but like how this would proceed? Yeah. Yeah. So, for example, if they do need some kind of permit, then to to Beth's comments, could they sign some affidavit that says that they're not in violation of their CCRs? Granted, I know there's a lot of conversation about should these CCRs be updated, not our purview, but um, sure. Um, and this has been a discussion for as long as these have been talked about. Um, and so we've gone through kind of different iterations of what might that look like. Um, and just to kind of back up a little, we have um something we have public restrictions which are what we enforce, we regulate, we change, and we have private restrictions, which are what CCNRs, HOAs, what those fall under. Um, we don't get involved with private restrictions. A lot of that is um you know and I can defer to legal here but the legalities of enforcing those private restrictions and these private restrictions can be anything from the paint color of your house to what we're talking about today which is restricting an accessory dwelling unit. And so we don't get involved because if somebody comes in and applies for a permit to paint their co house pink and their CCNRs prohibit that that's not even something we look at on the permit. Um you know it just gets really really muddy with how how we would even enforce those. We've talked with our building department about um a checkbox of hey, I've checked my CCNRs. Um they're very very uncomfortable with that because it becomes a slippery slope as far as well if you're regulating ADUs but not the fence. How come you're only requiring them to check that box on one permit type? Um and also the homeowner is not often coming in to apply for this building permits. It's usually a contractor. So then they, you know, have to go back to the homeowner. We have a 10-day turnaround for building permits. So, you can just see how this would snowball into um an issue. We're we're uh we did put a restriction or I guess an acknowledgement in the zoning code that this is not intended to to conflict with private restrictions. Those are still in place. Um and so that is specifically when you go to the ADU portion of code, it says this isn't intended to conflict with private restrictions. We also have that in code somewhere else. We point to that section um just as a reminder. Um, hey, you know, we're doing what we're we can legally, but our hands are kind of tied with these private restrictions. Got it. Thank you. Um, I have I have a couple more questions, but I'll just ask one more for now. Uh, can you walk me through because Doug and a couple of other people talked about the parking the that's coming with the new uh state regulation and I I was just a little confused about what what was what was what. Sure. Um, so this current ordinance requires one additional parking space per accessory dwelling unit. So if you have an accessory dwelling unit, you do have to demonstrate that you have one um that you have parking on site. Um there were a couple iterations of AB396. Originally it was you can't require any parking and like I said, we worked with the bill creators to hey, we've had three years of public outreach. People want parking. Can you work this in so that it's no more than one? Um, and so that worked into the ordinance that if you are regulating this, one is the maximum that you can regulate. I got one. Commissioner Williams for Hi, Grace. Um, would you address a comment made at public's comment short-term rental properties are going to go away as soon as this is enacted? Can can you address that for me and maybe clarify? Sure. And I've I've had a couple of calls since this ordinance came out um because before there was no regulation for short-term rentals in this ordinance and we didn't regulate. We don't currently regulate short-term rentals. Um and so there are, you know, definitely people who currently have short-term rentals that they current, you know, they they might be on site or they might be a bedroom of their home. Um so on and so forth. So, if you do decide to build an ADU or convert your guest house into an ADU, it cannot be used as a short-term rental. However, the the little, you know, confusion comes in is you could rent out your home as a short-term rental. Um, we did go to council and discuss maybe doing a short-term rental ordinance as a whole to address the problem there. um they didn't really want to pursue that at that at this time and so they were more concerned about ADUs generally with short-term rentals. Does that make sense? Um yeah, I think that gets me where I need to go. Uh one other question is nobody else minds. Um I'm struggling to find where the AB396 directly correlates the limitations on the maximum amount of days or minimum amount of days that we can regulate. I don't actually have AB396 in front of me, but um one of the uh subsections of the bill says that you cannot restrict the rental of that for any um more than 28 days. And the reason it's 28 days is because that's our definition of transient housing as well as the state's definition of transient housing. Um and so that's where they got the 28 days. Okay. All right. Thank you, Grace. So, to your point, if you wanted to rent it out as a short-term rental for 30 days, you could do that. Um, but it's just that those shorter terms are are restricted. So, are you are you saying I'm I'm missing you there? Are you saying we could create our ADU policy with um a limitation of nothing less than six months or 90 days or Yes, we could go beyond that. Um, sorry, that's where my confusion was. Oh, I'm sorry. So we could we couldn't go be yeah we could go beyond that 28 days. Okay. Madam clerk, would it be possible to flash the slide that uh Miss Mcaden showed earlier with those the 28 the parking and so forth to show compliance with the state law. Yeah. Oh, maybe it was maybe the 28 was on another slide then. But you you had said something about the there's the 28 days for less than 28 days. Okay. Okay. I'm done for now. Commissioner Gianiantini. Hi Grace. Hi. Um, can you speak to the design standards and where you've kind of landed with this draft ordinance and and how I can kind of look at this and put myself at ease with how it's been handled? Thank you for that. I did want to address one of Donna's comments um about the duplex concerns and the the design standards just in general. So, I'll bring that particular section up that we are talking about. And so we did add in a um we did add in for attached ADUs because the concern is how are these to Donny's Donna's point. How are these going to be different than duplexes? If you can't do a duplex, why should you be allowed to do an attached ADU? Um and so we do have something in our guest house standards which are allowed today. You can do an attached guest house. You just can't have a kitchen. um the front door of that attached ADU shall not be visible from the same street um of that of the front door of the principal structure. And so that's to kind of prevent the appearance of just two um entrances, two primary residences um on one street. And then must be subordinate in size to the single family home. And she kind of talked about her issues with that. That came directly from our guest house standards. And so we just thought let's stay consistent because those are so similar. Um but if this body wanted to kind of modify that they could. As for other design standards, again we took from that guest house um use because it is so similar. Um so we took that roof pitch must be same or within the range to the primary structure contemporary interpretations of architectural features. So you're just having, you know, some compatibility to that of the primary structure. So it's not a sore thumb. And like I said, we've had a lot of push back or um kind of complaints since we've added this back in because you might have a brick house with, you know, your kind of classic roof, but they want to do more modern ADU with a flat roof, which wouldn't currently be allowed with this ordinance. Great. Uh secondly, can you speak more to the owner occupied issue and how that works with the ordinance? There is currently no owneroccupied requirement. Um, I know through my research with other jurisdictions that can be an issue with enforcement. Um, and that's why we stayed away from that with this particular ordinance. However, again, you know, it's up to this body if they wanted to add add something or recommend council adopt something like that. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Jockman, I have a question about the 5,000 foot requirement. So first that is it correct that that applies to both the attached and detached units. So um I'm kind of confused obviously with the state law there are when I look at the parking requirement it's it's sort of a blunt force to make ADUs possible. They only can ever be conditioned with one parking stall. I have separate thoughts about that. But is it true that with at the city level you can have the 5,000 foot minimum because that is also a blunt force acting in the opposite direction that will prohibit many parcels from having either type of ADU. So, I guess what I'm asking is um can we can we continue to modify that or will it will it will it change should should it change perhaps based on whether or not it's attached or detached? Definitely up to this body. Other jurisdictions do have different lot size standards for if it's attached or detached. Um I don't I don't have a prefer I mean if this body has a preference of how they wanted to look at that because we have other standards like I've talked about with lot coverage and setbacks I think it makes sense to have one because ultimately the impacts are very similar. Um but if this body thinks it's more appropriate to have different lot sizes that's something we can discuss. Okay. My my other item is um about that property that's at 899 Casaza. So obviously that individual is looking to improve their property. Um what sort of process would they go through today if they wanted to do that with the ADU ordinance aside? if they so if they wanted to build a structure in front of their current home um because we don't currently allow ADUs they would have to tear out the kitchen of their home build then build a home in front of it and that would become their primary house with the house in back becoming a guest quarters. Um if this ordinance passed they could build um a primary home in front of that structure and keep the kitchen um as long as it met the proportional requirements. So they could they could flip-flop it if that's your if that's your question. Right. So okay, if they this goes through they they apply for they you know they come up with a site plan that includes the new unit that's then their primary one. Are they allowed to do that in a single process where they categorize this uh existing structure that they have? Um, yeah, I believe it would be it could be one building permit. They might have to do two, one for each structure. Mr. Really, you could add in on that. I believe Grace is correct. I think if they were modifying if if this ordinance had been adopted and the kitchen would be permitted, then it could go under one permit because they wouldn't be modifying the second structure. They would just be building a new structure. Correct. So they they don't have to add anything if this ordinance was adopted. Correct. They wouldn't have to. Okay. Um I will save my comments for parking and deliberations. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Del, I have a couple uh more questions. Grace. Um, so obviously we're not talking specifically about short-term rental um, policies here, right? But what, you know, is there is there plans to to look at that? Because now again, now there seems to be a lot of, you know, like you can have a guest house, but no kitchen, you can have an AD, you can have it attached, you can't have it attached, short-term, long-term, CCR. So there seems like there's a lot going on. And I think what what I'm trying to um make sure happens and to some of the the folks who spoke here tonight is like I don't want this to be bespoke. I don't want it to be case by case, right? And I feel like we're kind of going down that path a little bit. And so I'm just kind of curious as to what the process might be short-term or long term to sort of ensure that we put the best in place. And you know, again, I'm not trying to delay this by any means. Um, but are there other things that we should be considering to ensure that again this is kind of the best? And again, it's not going to be the best for everybody. I totally get that. Um, but are there other things that we can consider either as part of this or as a different policy that we're looking at that would help answer some of these questions that are coming up? Yes. So, this current ordinance would not be case by case because there are such strict rules and regulations. Um, which is one of the complaints we've had is that doesn't fit my particular situation. Um, and our response is, you know, it's really hard to stay consistent with and fair with these regulations while also fitting everyone's situation. Um, but that was intentional, right? This is these are very clear cut and dry regulations for um, everyone. Everyone gets the same rules here. It should be fairly upfront as to what the regulations are. Um, short-term rentals were brought up as a concern and so staff added in a restriction for that. You cannot rent these out on a short-term basis. Um, as far as looking at them, is there a plan to look in them as a whole? Is that one of your questions? Well, I guess just is is there and again not related to this obviously, but are there plans potentially to look at short-term rentals and how that works and potentially down the line re-evaluate where some of these ADUs might fit into that? Yes. So, any code that we adopt, we're constantly mod or, you know, monitoring and seeing how that's working with the um, you know, title 18 rewrite in 2020. We just came and did a code amendment just recently because we kept a list of things that worked that didn't worked. Um this is you know much smaller than that but of course we will we will monitor it and make sure that it's see if it's working if there's complaints. U maybe that there's issues with these design standards people are really having a hard time meeting this and it's preventing ADUs from coming to market. Um there is a plan to kind of look at short-term rentals as a whole. It just depends on when council kind of gives us that direction. Hi, Grace. Commissioner Williams. Um, in regards to the formal c uh former council woman's questions, um, this because it happened prior to my time, was there any talks about the separate addresses and the incorporating the existing ADUs and could you touch on that briefly? So, interestingly enough, I think about maybe when we first started talking about ADUs about 25 years ago, I think the city handled addressing. Now, all addressing is through the county. They've gotten a lot better at making those consistent. So, because um they handle the addressing for Sparks, Wo County, and Reno, it would be very, you know, it should be the same for each jurisdiction. And so, if ADUs aren't getting a separate address in Sparks to the county, they wouldn't get a separate address here. But also, we don't have any say in that because it's the county that handles the addressing. And then would you touch on the incorporation of existing ADUs? Has that ever been a This has come up a couple times. You know, maybe there's illegal ADUs out there. They're converting guest homes to ADUs. How would that what would that process look like to bring them into conformance? And this is no different than any other non-conforming structure we have. Um, we allow people to get a retroactive permit. we have our building department go out and do an inspection mostly for life safety, who did this electrical, the plumbing, making sure that it was constructed to our current building code. Um, and if it wasn't, they have to bring it up to code. Um, but if it was, then we can retroactively permit it. Uh, Commissioner Jock. So, one more I guess I'll put this in the form of a question. This is in regards to parking. So, um, hearing that the one per unit requirement for the ADU on a parcel, it looks, I guess, fasile, but the um, the reality is that all other parking codes in the city are done on a square footage basis. So, I can see how this, even though it looks simple, it could quickly become complicated for staff to administer when applications come through. As an example, if you have a 2,000 foot home, just using simple numbers, repurpose 500 of that under the current code, you would then be required to have two parking spaces uh for your 1500 foot square foot primary unit coupled with the one per unit for the 500 foot. This does not reflect the situation when you might have a 3,000 foot unit in a backyard on a very large parcel. So, it's it's a rigid standard. I can see that people will want to make deviation requests. So for staff, this is a bit of an open-ended question. Do you feel comfortable with the code in that way? Because it could be difficult to navigate when applications come in when you have dwelling units being measured in different ways. Sure. We did a couple of test cases to for all of these standards. You know, would this make sense in these particular situations? Um, and oddly enough, our staff came up with the same answer, which is always a good good thing. Uh, but the only other way we could phrase that regulation is, you know, one per 1250 square feet not to exceed one per ADU. So, because we have that limit by state law. Um, if we rephrased it, it might get more confusing. So, I I am comfortable with that one per ADU. Uh, and you know, that can be something we continue to monitor. Okay. But you think that maybe so so I guess can you elaborate? How did staff feel about that modified one per 1250 also capping at one per unit? I I think if we were rewarded it that way it would get a little bit more confusing just because we have that cap in there for the ADU. So we're still treating them separately. Um whereas if we said one per 1250 are we looking at them as a whole with the ADU and the house. So if we specified that we were looking at it as a whole that might simplify it. Um, personally, I think the one per ADU is a little bit more simple. Okay. As with the staff that um, reviews some of the test cases, but I'm not sure if Mike wants to chime in. I would agree. When these come in for building permit, we'll be looking at the primary structure that's on there. Um, there's a lot of, for example, a lot of homes and now they're actually overparked. People have, you know, expanded their driveways and what not. We we look at all of that when it comes into the building department. And the way it's set now, I think is probably the simplest in terms of the reviewer that's actually going to be looking into the permits when they come in. Okay, thank you. Nothing further. Any further questions? Okay, we will close question. No question. Okay, we will close questioning and go into deliberations. Um, I'll I'll start, but I do want to hear what other people have to say and if there are any other potential conditions or changes that we we want to recommend to city council. Um, as we have heard in the past, we we do get a lot of um a lot of different views and opinions. Everybody's lot is different, their neighborhoods are different, their experiences are different. Um, and so it is this is a a difficult thing to try to process and I appreciate um the work Grace your your team did to try to get us to sort of like a not to minimize it but like lowest common denominator where like we're making as making it as easy as possible for people to understand the criteria um while at the same time trying to make it um useful for for everybody. Um, I mean, I still have concerns with the design feature. You know, it's kind of interesting because I see a lot of like, you know, nice little cute tiny homes and those wouldn't be allowed in my, you know, my backyard. Actually, with CCRs, nothing's allowed in my backyard anyway. But, um, and so that that's kind of the the area that I'm still concerned about. And also with the parking issues. Um, I mean, those are kind of my two that those are the same same issues we kind of had talked about before, putting those restrictions on design. Um, so I'll just I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks for saying I appreciate what you're saying there. I'd been concerned about parking for since I my first meeting. It seems like we're we're going the opposite way of what we should be doing, but I think that's a little out of my purview at this point. Um, I have really two thoughts when I was kind of thinking about all this. Um, one is the minimum length that's uh being proposed. Um, when I read AB396, I I really see the intent of um sustaining long-term stable housing for these larger cities. um 28 days I don't think cuts it. Um when you look when you try to look objectively amongst the US and there's many cities that have done this. A lot of people point back um to particular places like one of the more shocking ones was um Santa Cruz. I don't know why that was shocking but just you know it just seems like a weird one to highlight across the country. But you know multiple federal agencies have kind of done mock-ups on this. the general consensus among um the reports that I've spent the last few days reading was uh no no less than six months. And so that's kind of something I came here to the body um prepared to at least try to discuss. Um I I'll go back to I think the idea of AB396 was to create um sustainable long-term housing and anything less than that um I I think is counterproductive. Um, the other thing I was thinking about is that I failed to to really understand an objective standard when it comes to the building of these um, ADUs. And um the objective standard I was thinking about was that it seems to me that at least on even on staff's behalf that having some type of um calculation to determine the size of these ADUs that can be built would be a lot easier than just approving oneoffs every every time they come in. Um, in the reading that I've done, I think the reality is is that at best, um, across the United States, if there are 200 applications for ADUs that come into a city, it generally is less than 50% actually get built. Um, and so with that in mind, I think, um, I would like to propose that there's, um, the way the way I've kind of worked on you or wording it is that the stipulation that AD ADUs shall not exceed 33% of the primary dwelling units gross floor area on the parcel, which generally equates to about 50%. Um, and so those are my two comments. That's really all I've come up with at this point. I feel like the rest of it is Would staff like to add any clarification to that suggestion? Yes, I would. Um, we have very clear standards for accessory structures that are detached. Um, every zoning district has size requirements, whether it be um, you know, most of our single family districts it's 1,200 square feet or 50% of the primary structure, whichever is less. So, it's not oneoffs. It's not This one can be built, but this one can't. Um, we have very, very specific standards. I think the issue that Donna brought up was attached ADUs. So, currently it says it must be subordinate in size and the front door has to be on a different side of the structure. Um, if you wanted, I think probably the best thing to do would be to follow the detached accessory structure standards for the attached ADU. Does that make sense? So you still have that um specific measurement of 50% or whatever the zoning district is, but it's applicable whether it's attached or detached. That's great. That was a question I was going to ask. Perfect to read your mind. Thank you so much. So since we're in deliberations, I'll I'll share the I guess you could call it frustration with the state requirement that we only have one per unit. It's rigid and it's not measured in the same way that other park other dwelling units are within the city of Reno. So that makes it a little bit unique. It it doesn't reflect a big ADU and it doesn't reflect a small ADU. It just caps it at that level. So while I can hear that we all have some level of frustration about that in one way or the other, I'm trying to simply say it sounds like there's nothing we can do because it's a state law. So, uh, that will govern that, uh, for better or worse. So, I guess in regards to any other items, um, there's been a lot of discussion that has brought us to this point. I know that at one point we were capping that at 9,000 square feet, so I'm pleased to see that it's gone lower. Uh, so I'm I'm I'm comfortable with it standing in that way. uh there is some disagreement between staff and I one of the public comments that we had regarding how the new primary unit uh would come in. So I'm I'm deferring there to staff that it sounds like there is the system in place that can allow that to be addressed in one application therefore simplifying the process for that. And if I may just clarify, I think the confusion was if you could flip your primary residence. And yes, however, the one restriction is your accessory dwelling unit has to be behind the primary structure. So, she has a unique lot that it's already set so far back. She could put a new one in front and it could become her primary. Um, and I think that was the confusion was if you could flip your primary versus accessory, which you could as long as it met all of our other standards. And I I believe that lot was on a corner. Does that change the answer at all if it's on a corner? Yes, it changes our fronts and sides and so on and so forth. So, it still would have to be set back behind that front plane of of the the house. And so, we would look at each um each case that came in and make sure that it met all of those standards, but that was the particular um situation that we heard about was if you can flip your primary verse accessory, you can as long as it meets all the standards. Okay. Thank you. If there are um no other deliberations, I prepared to entertain a motion. I'm I'm I'm fine with that, but I I'm curious as to um what Commissioner Williams is thinking, especially about the six-month limitation instead of 28 days. Commissioner Williams, again, thanks, Commissioner Dovar. Um, I I just go back to how what where I think our legislators were were imagining, you know, the the point of this assembly bill. Um, and and to me, it it just goes back to getting people in housing. And I don't think the idea is getting people into short-term housing. I think the idea is creating an environment that promotes additional long-term stable places for people to live. And so um some cities across the country are going a year. I started out this mental journey at at least 90 days. I kind of found myself in in the six month um in some discussions just amongst peers um in my world. Uh somebody had brought up temporary assignments um internships you know that are in the three to four month range. I I could I could entertain a a thought about basing around that. I don't know actually what level of that is is happening in our city. Um it just seemed like kind of the the mid-range of of a standard in the US which is anywhere from 30 days to a year and I just felt comfortable like kind of mid-range in that. So that helps at all. If I may interject again um AB396 does not allow us I I think I got confused originally when you asked that question. um originally was we couldn't restrict rentals at all and we worked that so that we can't restrict any more than 28 days. So we couldn't do the six month it has to be your lease has to be at least 6 months. It has to be at least 28 days. We can restrict within 28 days. So if you want to do 27 days, 26 days, we can't do 29 and more. Um so 28 is the cap. 28 is the cap. Originally I thought you were saying could they rent it out for six months? Sure they could. We can't regulate that they do anything more than 28 days. Um, and like I said, the reason we got there was originally they said you can't restrict rentals at all. And we said, well, we've had some concerns about short-term rentals, so they put in that 28 day piece. You can go 27, 26, 25, but we can't go to 29 or or above. I apologize for my confusion there. Does city council have I'm assuming they have the authority to modify this beyond what we recommend tonight? Correct. But they cannot modify that because it's in state law. Sure. But in any other way or something. Yes. Okay. I I guess Chris and I understand you're you're extremely good at your job. Um I I can't find that anywhere reference in AB396. And the 28 day piece. Yeah. I can't re I can't find a days at all. It it generally could be really wrong here. Commissioner Williams, I think it's also important if you think we have a lot of nonADU single family dwellings that people rent on a month-to-month basis. Um, for example, um, somebody came in actually just the other day into our pod counter and said, you know, I just sold my house and I'm I'm looking to move and they they were renting a house for 30 days until their new house was completed with construction. So, that happens all the time. Um, so there's nothing in code right now that would prevent you, for example, from renting your house monthtomonth if if you wanted to. Okay. I I appreciate that perspective. I think in that it generally the that type of stuff that's open is under like a short-term rental, you know, in most cases, even those are those aren't regulated at this point. Um, I'm going to get um Cal or the clerk to pull that up really quick so I can show you. It's possible it's not in there, but um I think it's subregul or G or H or something, but I'll we'll pull that up. Just give us a minute or so. Can I get control? I don't think so. Okay. And I my only other thought is maybe the wrong one is attached as an exhibit if it's not in this one. Um I know that it was added. Jasmine Ma for the record. If you go to section one of the bill and um section uh one I think keep scrolling down. It says that except as otherwise provided in this paragraph you cannot prohibit the owner of the residential property from using the accessory dwelling unit as rental housing. The ordinance may prohibit the owner of the residential property from using the accessory dwelling unit as transient lodging. The city defines transient lodging as 28 days or less. So that's where the 28 days comes from. So just to it's it's saying that we can prohibit. It's just that our terminology defines it at 28 days and I believe the states as well. Okay. And we could I mean to your point we could look at that if we wanted to change the definition of transient. I think we would also have to look at the state's definition to make sure we're not in conflict there. Um however I will say it's fairly common practice to have transit be 28 days and less or less. So I'd be a little nervous about changing that. Um but okay something. Yeah I can defer until then. Thanks Grace. Sorry about that. No sorry about that. That's okay. Any further deliberation based on that discussion? It sounds like the commission is moving towards a motion as presented by staff. Would you, Grace McAdin, again for the record, would you like to add in Commissioner Williams um attached size regulations to be the same as a detached? Uh I would I would ask that the body support that and I appreciate you clarifying that because it actually makes a lot more sense. The same standard as detached to attached with an objective. I would just ask you include it in your motion um if you'd like that. I Yeah, I I can be supportive of that. Any other thoughts from the commission? So then um Mr. Williams, if you would like to entertain a motion, please proceed. Grace, do you you have a you have an example for that last part that you would suggest outside of just based on the compliance? Sure. Um, I think that the way you could phrase the motion, um, is to read what's on your screen and then say to, but with the exception or with the addition of utilizing the detached accessory structure size requirements for attached AVUs and I don't know if that works further motion. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Grace. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Williams, for the record, based upon the compliance with the applicable findings, I move to recommend that city council approve the text amendment by ordinance with the recommendation to city council that the um standard size uh for detached ADUs apply to also attached. Commissioner Delvier, I second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. We will now move on to uh agenda item number six, training on planning commission roles and responsibilities for this item. This is not for possible action. Chairman, I have a point of information. We have a another public comment uh time. It's not a comment. I'm asking for information. I'm sorry, sir. You're welcome to come over to me and ask for information while they move on to the next item if you'd like. for item number six. Do we have a presentation from staff? Yes, I'm back. All right. This has been Grace McAdin for the record again. This has been a long- aaited training. Um when I looked at the date, it was on May 9th. So, we're here. Um this commi commission had asked for some trainings um best practices, how to be commissioner. So this one particularly is on um roles and responsibilities. All right. So we'll start with what is a planning commission? It's a group of citizens appointed by the city council that performs both required and discretionary functions in specifically land use matters. And so all of you were appointed by a city council member um to do that. The role of the planning commission. So you all act as advisory board on planning and development. So for example, this particular case of ADUs, you recommended council do a certain thing. Um they also ensure that land use decisions are consistent with the zoning code and master plan. So a lot of your findings are kind of tied to our zoning and master plan. Um this also provides a form for public comment. We saw as we saw tonight and I think tonight's a great example is how some of those public comments can shape your conversation and make the um ordinance or project a lot better. Um you also provide formal recommendations on decisions. So, um, you know, like I said, as as you did tonight, but also there's cases where you are the final decision maker, um, which is most of the cases you actually see. So, what regulates this body? You have bylaws, rules, procedures, open leading law, um, ethics and conflicts of interest, and then we have Robert, Robert's rules of order, which is generally how you would run this meeting. So, in the bylaws, it regulates generally this body meets on the first and third Wednesday of each month at 6 pm. You have public comment, you have voting, you have action by motion. Um, and then as we've seen in the past, a tie vote equals a technical denial. Um, and then it also regulates the format of the meetings, how they're run, you know, what comes first, what comes last. Uh, commissioner absences. And so, you know, we see this from time to time and the bylaws kind of regulate you have to do a full review of materials. You have to watch the video um so that you're prepared for the next meeting or the next time that comes up on an agenda. The commission may rearrange the agenda, which we've seen before. Um and then commissioners communicate with the administrator, which is Mike, and typically do not communicate directly with staff. Traits of a commissioner typically you know you all are visionary, aware of problems and potential. Um, it's important that you remain impartial and objective. It's important you put the community interest first. Um, come prepared, which we'll talk about a little bit more. Um, practical but also creative. I think both of those are important with the projects you see. And then most importantly, consistent. So, be prepared for the meeting. This is something um, you know, that I think is super important, especially as a planning commissioner with these long meetings. Make sure you read the materials, you understand codes, ordinances, and the master plan. Contact Mike the administr Mike the administrator u with questions before meeting. So if you're confused about something or you know you have a certain question, contact him so that by the time you get here, hopefully you have that um that question answered. And for most questions, it's good to do it on a public forum. But if you just have a question about, hey, I'm going to be late or you know, how would this particular thing work? Um feel free to call Mike beforehand. play an active part in the meeting and be sure to ask questions. Be on time. Commissioner Williams, you weren't on time today. Oh, I see Grace. Uh, I added that in last minute when I knew we're going to be late. Um, listen to everybody, which I think this body is really good at. And then consider the relationship to the master plan. Um, that ultimately is our guiding document. So, this often happens. Um, you know, especially if you have someone who watches YouTube a lot, they're gonna they might recognize you and say, "Hey, you're planning commissioner. Did you hear what's coming on the agenda?" Um, it's very tricky situation. You you do not want to really talk about things that are going to be happening on a future agenda. So, recommend sending comments to staff. You can always provide the staff person's contact information, phone number. Um, just avoid contact that might invalidate that determination. So, if you say, "Yeah, I'm going to vote that project down. Don't worry about it." That might be problematic. Um, and then if you do have any um discussions like you often do, maybe the applicant calls you to say, "Hey, here's here's what we're presenting to this project." That's fine. Just make sure that you disclose that at the hearing, which this body is also pretty good at. And then never discuss cases outside of the meeting. So, if you run into each other um outside of this body, don't say, "Hey, how are you going to vote on that project tomorrow?" Uh I'm really having a hard time with that because that's intended to be done in the public forum and it's super important that we get all of those discussions on the record. Professional duties, remain calm, leave your professional uh personal bias at the door. Um be patient and courteous and respectful. use terms that are understandable to the public. As planners and as engineers, we're often guilty of using acronyms. Um, so just try to spell it out so that the public knows what we're talking about. Um, and if staff is guilty of that, feel free to ask what that means. Um, and then don't just repeat others comments, especially when we get into these really long agendas and meetings. Um, if what's on your mind has already been said, don't feel like you also have to say it for the record. Um, it just kind of helps with that efficiency. And then all comments are on the record. Uh and then you know just common sense, don't text during the meeting and then be consistent, fair and impartial when you're making your decisions. Chair of commission, we just got a new chair of this commission and um his duties are control the meeting. He kind of sets the tone, ensures all parties have a chance to provide input. They focus discussion, you know, on the actual topic. So if if you start talking about something that's not agendaized, um just make sure to bring that focus back to what we're actually talking about. Expedite action, which we've done before, you have the authority to do that. Um and then you also have a vote. Hearing procedures, um you know, when we hear impacts raised by the public, kind of how can you mitigate that? What can you think of that staff hasn't already thought of to help mitigate those impacts? Avoid debating with one another. um and try to obtain all the information that you can about a particular topic so you can make the best decision and then if necessary you can always continue the meeting. So to make sure we have a fair hearing, you know, make sure everyone has the opportunity to be heard. Um, relevance weighed by standards review. Does the project meet the requirements? I mean, I think that we're really good at making sure that this body comes back to that. You have findings, you have requirements. Just because you don't like the project doesn't mean that it doesn't meet those standards. So legally, you are kind of tied to those findings to make, you know, make a decision. And then make sure that you know all testimony is considered when you are putting uh finally making your vote. And then the number of public comment is not always a criteria for a decision. So um you can't just get like an Excel spreadsheet and say how many people were opposed, how many people are in favor and make your make your decision. Again, you have those specific finding specific requirements that you have to take into account. So typically our um meeting procedure, which we've done tonight, call to order, announce case on the agenda. Staff will make a presentation. Applicant if there is an applicant presents, we have public comment, questions, discussion, and then a motion. Um, so as I said, vote based on standards. We have the standards of review, which are our findings. Staff typically makes a recommendation for denial or approval. Um, and you don't always have to agree with that recommendation. Keep an open mind. Um, and the audience may not always represent all of the views. So, you know, we've been trying as staff to get as much public comment as possible and um just so that we can kind of better reflect some of the opinions that that the uh public has. Um but know that it's it's not fully representative. And so try to keep an open mind of how this can impact everyone, even those that may not have been able to attend the meeting. And then don't exceed your authority that that you're granted. That's it. Questions? Commissioner Delvr, I have a I have a question. Um, sometimes we we get the packet for these meetings like the Friday before and I'm always trying to be as prepared as I can, but there's a lot that goes into that, understanding sort of what the background was, what's happening, relating it to the codes and the master plan. Um, and I also feel like we've asked a couple of times for more information, um, such as like the the history that went into getting approval from NV Energy or things like that. And so I feel like we're we're missing some content and we're also not really given enough time to review and be as prepared as we potentially should be. Um, so is it, and again, maybe this is something that we put on there for future discussion, which we've done a couple of times, can we get access to the information sooner than a couple of days. Um, and can we can we get the background uh information as well? So, those are just my comments. Definitely a couple ways. Can I answer that first part? Yes. Oh, yeah. Sure. This is Sorry, Jasmine Ma. For the record, the reason that you get your packets when you do is because that's when they are posted. um as soon as information is released to the public body under state law, it has to be released to the public. So when the entire packet is ready and put together for the agenda, that's when you get the the packets. And that's that's why that timing is, you know, somewhat shorter than you would prefer because it's when it's published. And and that's fair, but then to hold us to the standards of coming so prepared is maybe not as accurate as it could be because I I mean it's it's really hard to like be prepared for all of the stuff again if you're trying to mitigate it and understand the codes and understand how it fits into the master plan and be prepared with questions and um so again I don't know if there's a longer term solution but um it is it is difficult to to come as prepared as I would like. A couple things I would recommend is we send out a development review memo the Friday of every intake which this body is all on. Some of those are not going to be here. Um so they might be staff review or administrative review or they might be withdrawn or um you know extended but they do have the anticipated hearing date. And so you can always kind of stay involved that way of like learning upfront. Hey what is what are they recommending? what do the application or what are they requesting and what do the application materials look like at that point. Um and then you know that's probably the best way upfront to say kind of filtering what's going to be on the August 13th agenda or the August 20th agenda. Um, and then, you know, we do have our kind of general noticing requirements, but we are trying to get as much input as we can on the front end. As unfortunately, you know, those agendas legally once they're posted, we we don't have any wiggle room there, but um, we're trying to post them as early as we can. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. One one other resource is the one envy US system which is basically a link into our Excella system which all for example comments that are received from outside agencies internal engineering comments planning comments those are loaded into that system and that is public record that you can access. Uh, Commissioner Williams, uh, Commissioner Dovi, I echo your sentiment. Uh, this this information we get on a Friday is a beast. And, um, I wonder how sometimes commissioners even get the chance to tour a location or show up and do those things. Um, just just for clarification, today I got an email um, notifying of a W five NAB. Um, one of the proposed projects on there is is in the ward that I represent um just north or just south of Highway 40 um at the T intersection of Edinburgh. Would that's the first I'm learning of that uh project for 70 homes just right on the river. Would that have been in that staff report of ongoing projects or new projects? That that project just came in on our last intake. Okay. So, it's just now starting the the public review process. Okay. Awesome. Okay. But that's a great example of something you could go in to our 1MBB system, take a look at the application materials, um, and kind of start that process a little earlier, go out to the site um, and that's kind of how you you can get ahead of it. And, you know, like I said, sometimes they get withdrawn and you never see them, but at least it gives you a little bit more time to prepare for the meeting. Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Confantini. Um, can you speak to kind of the six degrees of separation for uh, planning commission members? Reno is a really small town and I currently am a member of a family who's been intertwined in a significant amount of business, schooling, friendships, families. So, I kind of know everyone and everyone knows me. So, where is the disclosure? and we received feedback from someone in attendance tonight that there was a conflict of interest with a previous commissioner. Can you speak to that issue and where our guiding p principles should guide us? Sure. I would always recommend to consult with our legal team to see if you do um have a conflict and I might actually defer to them to answer this question as far as when they should disclose. It's a broad question. Um, but if we could get some finite answers, if if you know the email was speaking to an uncle, I friends, I mean, do we just kind of pass anything by you that might be sticky? You are certainly welcome to do that. We're we're happy to opine, but generally we're guided by NRS chapter 280 281A is is the chapter and it speaks to um whether you would have a pecuniary interest and um you know if for example um if your uncle had a project that you were contracting on you would have a pecuniary interest and that would be a clear dis you know not just disclosure but you should abstain and and remove yourself from the deliberations. Uh if it were an uncle who you know you see at family reunions and they have a project and you're not involved in that at all. It would be a disclosure but it wouldn't necessarily require recusal. It's understood. That's thank you. Kind of if you think about it as would this affect my bottom line financially, that's kind of the the easy way to look at it. Understood. I appreciate it. If anybody else doesn't have anyone, I got another one. Commissioner Williams for the record. Um, Grace, I had a couple notes written down um about planning commission ethics and um you can lead me down a path of saying we should address this at a different time or maybe this is a different segment for training, but um some of the things I have kind of seen or overheard uh are are blending roles when people are speaking publicly um leveraging positions etc. Do you have guidance or is there guidance? Um, I've seen everything from speaking during legislative hearings to uh using public comment periods at other agencies um in an official capacity. So, I didn't I I kind of saw it briefly on there. Just wondering if we should address that or if there's a time and a place um of different training that we should address that. Sure. We do have a plan to do a separate ethics training specifically. Um, and I would say in the interim if you have any questions, I would feel free to reach out to Mike or our legal team. Okay, great. Thanks, Grace. And just to clarify, we can include that as part of that ethics training to address address those questions if you if you would like that. Okay, great. I'll can send them to you. Thank you. This item is not for possible action. So, I believe if there are no further questions, that concludes this agenda item. Thank you, Grace. We will now move on to item number seven, Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. There have been two meetings since the last uh City of Reno Planning Commission meeting. So, um, Commissioner Williams, would you be able to inform us of the first meeting that occurred? Yeah, the first meeting was in regards to Stonegate. Um it was effectively postponed uh due to uh the need for some more information by the regional planning commission. And then on that item there was also the ranchera pud. Correct. Commissioner Williams. There was also the ranchera pud which was um passed. Okay. So then for the uh meeting that occurred Monday this week uh that went until about 10 p.m. there was uh the continuence of said project for Stonegate. That uh motion was made that was there was a technical denial uh vote in favor 54. A master plan amendment requires a twothirds majority. So the motion failed as a result of that and as a recommendation from legal counsel at the meeting. The agenda item for uh project of regional significance was tabled separately due to the length of the meeting. All other items on the agenda were tabled for the next meeting which I believe is the last week this month. So that uh concludes the summary of the TMRPA liaison report. We will now move on to staff announcements item number eight. Thank you. Um our next meeting on August 20th is going to be a little bit different. We're actually the meeting will begin at 5:00 and the reason being is the planning commission also serves as the capital improvements advisory committee. Um, so we will be meeting, that board will be meeting at 5:00 on August 20th. Um, you will be receiving a presentation from city staff and RTC staff on the regional road impact fee update and that program and then the board will meet again probably within the next few months to review the proposed U police impact fee. Um, so that meeting will be held at 5:00 and then um we will move on to our regularly scheduled planning commission meeting at 6 o'clock p.m. on August 20th. Um, other than that, the only other announcement I have um related to council actions was that the city council did uphold your recommendation of approval of the Mills family zone change. As you recall, that was the former Ventana Point SPD and that's the only um item that this board has heard that has gone through council since your last meeting. Thank you, Mr. Elli. Uh, moving on to item number nine, commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. Hearing none, uh, we will move on to item number 10, public comment. Uh, madame clerk, do we have any public comment at this? We have one public commenter, Beth Dory. Please state your name for the record. You have three minutes. Yes. I'll take less than that. Can I Okay, getting back to the CCNRs. Um, when Grace was talking about a colored house, the reason why this house has no roof is because they decided to go against our CCNRs. And I think that there will be injunctions and people will have to remove ADUs if they don't follow these old CCNRs. So I just wanted to put that on record. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Any other items for under public comment? I do not have any additional public comment. We'll move on to item number 11, adjournment. Do we have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Motion to adjurnn. Commissioner Williams. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I I I meeting is adjourned.