meeting for the city of Reno. Uh we'll begin with pledge of allegiance and since it's Commissioner Draculich's last night with us, take it away of the United States of America. Give me one second. All right. Attendance. Chair Roier here. Vice Chair Villinoeva here. Commissioner Bisera here. Commissioner Delviar here. Commissioner Draculich here. Commissioner Jakaman here. Commissioner Belto here. We have a quorum. Great. Um, so we'll take uh public comment. This would be for any item that's either agendaized or not agendaized. Um, and so this is the general public comment. We will also have public comment for each of the items on the agenda. So do uh we have request to speak forms. Um, do we have anyone online or in chambers looking to speak under general public comment? Chair, I'll just read the language into the record, please. Members of the public may call into the meeting to provide public comment by using the Zoom link provided on the agenda, specifically https colon slashlinks.renino.gov/cap planning03-19-25. 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 3 minutes. If you are an attendee in the Zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time, please raise your hand. Lastly, while in this room, please be respectful. Warnings will be issued by the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave chambers if the behavior continues. And chair, you have a few um request to speak forms, right? Let's start with those. Oh, these reference uh 52. Uh she she wants to speak under general. Oh, okay. Um very well. Um let's start with Tony Harsh. And I understand you're also speaking for a few written comments. So, we'll start with yours and then you can go into the others. Okay. Um, I have something from Peter Chase Newman. Um, a photograph. So, that's I will I'm supposed to just do this. Am I correct? This is kind of fun. Try that. Is this is this good? Okay. All right. Um Tony Harsh, for the record, I am a former city council woman and also I'm looking forward to the agenda item on the uh regional governing board. I was a member of that as well when I served. So, as a um point of interest, a lot of us have been here for a long time regarding this item of accessory dwelling units. And so for a little audience participation, I thought I'd just ask everybody that has um addressed the board or or um city council on ADUs or granny flats since 1988 to stand up. No, there was somebody at the neighborhood advisory board uh war two. How about anybody in the 90s that has been here? Okay. How about from 2000 on? So, so a lot of newbies so to speak. Anyway, um yes, we have been looking at this for a long time and um I had provided for you some um a summary of what a number of us have felt kind of summarizes what we think about um acceler accessory dwelling units. And um the main concern that we will talk about, but that's a horse of another color that you don't have to deal with, is short-term rentals. And I would that was supposed to come back at the same time, and there was direction from city council on that. So, we're a little behind time on accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals. And so you'll see on the piece of paper that I provided you, the first point was that particular issue. Second point is um I'm jumping around here. Second point is making sure that they conform to the um CCNRs, PUDS, homeowners associations. And the second has to or the third has to do with accessory um dwelling units and the density within um the zones. So the reason I'm asking to speak longer um is because and I still won't go over my 3 minutes and 3 minutes is because I have um a letter that came from John Hester who was a senior planner for the city of Reno. He reviewed the staff report and um he had these comments. The city needs to address short-term rentals STRs at the same time they address ADUs. More STRs is not the stated purpose for added ADUs. It is for affordable housing. If they do not, this is B. If they do not, people will start using ADUs for short-term rentals. grow dependent on the income to cover their housing costs and make the argument that removing them will make their housing less affordable, which is the opposite of the reason ADUs are being proposed. Third, short-term rentals will have a negative impact on hotel and motel as well as disperse tourists into the neighborhoods causing noise, litter, and other problems. Point two, do not reduce the minimum below 9,000 square ft. Allowing ADUs on smaller lots will create a change in the neighborhood character than more so than on larger lots where they are not as prominent in relation to to the main unit. Three, the design the three design standards in 18.03.702 are important to keep. it would be even better to have all three required instead of just two of the three. Um John worked extensively with the planners prior to n uh to 2020 sat down at the table really worked on this had the experience of a senior planner now he's a planner for um TRPA then I have comments from Mercedes Deagara and Mercedes sat down with um John and planning as well and she reviewed the staff report and had comments and um you'll hear comments about Nuland's um because Nuland's represents a lot of different zoning groups. If we if it can be built, we have it. And um so anyway, she was looking at this as far as Nuland is concerned. Um her point was you're going to be hearing about one designated parking place per ADU. This one used is one off- streetet parking space per bedroom. If we should perhaps encourage this language again because street parking is considered an allowable designated parking space. So this is what this was what many residents were complaining about in public comment. The city has reduced this and has not d addressed it fully. An ADU could be broken into two or three or more bedrooms and then that would create street parking issues in most bedrooms in most neighborhoods. Um she was concerned about the zero lot line setbacks. You'll be looking at this and that is why um Peter Newman asked me to show this picture. I don't want to go over my time. Thank you for letting me run that together. If you have any questions or if you want me to quote anything further from their comments, I'm right there. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] Um, next we have Molly M. Mon. Hi. Good evening. Uh I am here to uh voice my objection to the current proposed ADU ordinance. I um am concerned because I don't believe that 3 minutes is really adequate to fully express in detail the problems with this ordinance. Um the over broad idea here is they drafted an ordinance um that basically piggybacks on top of what is our accessory structure ordinance which essentially is what regulates sheds in the backyards of our homes. And so now they want most of those standards to apply to residences that will be built in the backyards of homes. This particular ordinance um specifically targets every middle class neighborhood in the entire city. It is um directed at 9,000 square foot lots which are really just a quarter acre lot, not particularly large. The city has already sort of suggested that that would potentially be decreased to smaller lots. But what's important that you know is that there really aren't any parameters for this particular ordinance. In other words, as stated the um the accessory dwellings can be up to 29 ft tall. They can be 5 foot from your property line. They um will they they could be a duplex. They could be one structure and two residences. the um there is absolutely no occupancy limits whatsoever on this ordinance. There is 100% density allowed uh 100% increased density allowed on these lots. And so um if it's passed, there won't be any single family dwelling neighborhoods left because they will have been zoned out by this ordinance. And of course it will affect every uh middle class neighborhood and every middle class family that had the intention to live in middle class single family neighborhood because they won't be doing that any longer. Um I think it's really important that you recognize that these won't be affordable homes. The cost to build the experts have already weighed in on what the cost to build these accessory dwellings will be. roughly 300 um $300 a square foot and that won't result in an affordable home for someone to live in. These will be um targeted by developers and not homeowners building granny units. Um I would also point out that the parking um requirements for this ordinance are not enforceable. They have no teeth. There is no way that any neighborhood could protect themselves from multiple people living in these accessory dwellings and having multiple cars on the street. And I think that um later today you'll see the exact problem with the Humbult project um when it comes to parking. So, thank you for your attention to this. Thank you. Do we have any other public comment or anyone online wishing to speak under general public comment? Seeing none, we'll close public comment and we'll move to um approving the minutes of previous meetings starting with February 19, 2025. Uh Commissioner Valto move to approve. Commissioner Dracula. I second. All in favor? I. Okay. And the minutes for March 5th, 2025. Commissioner Draculich move to approve. Commissioner Vto second. All in favor? I I. Great. Um, we're going to do just a quick switch up on the agenda. Um, item number 6.2 has requested a continuence. So, we already have it agendaized. So, anybody here wishing to speak on 6.2 um would be welcome to do so. Do we have the applicant requesting formally requesting? Okay. State your name for the record. Yeah. Hi, I'm Christian Jones. I'm the applicant for this case. Um, I'm requesting the continuence to the April 16th meeting. Uh, we just had the NAB meeting yesterday and I would just like that time to respond to the public comment before coming to you guys. Do we need a motion to do that or Okay. Commissioner Visera move to uh afford the applicant the continuence as requested. Commissioner Delv. I second. Oh, thank you. Sorry. The motion and a second. All in favor? I see you in April. Okay. Going back to our regul regular scheduled agenda, we will go to item 5.1. Uh, acceptance of the city of Reno annual report to the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency. Two minutes. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the commission. For the record, Lauren Knox, senior planner. So, this item addresses the 2024 calendar year annual report to the Chucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency. I'm going to give you a brief overview of the reports and then the full report is in your um staff report. All right. So, first you might be wondering what the annual report is. So, I'm going to give you a little bit of a background here. So, the annual report is required by both the Nevada Revised Statutes as well as the Truckucky Meadows Regional Plan. Each local government and affected entity, those are really kind of our service or facilities providers, are required to submit a plan that basically discusses what work you've done in that year to help further the goals and policies and the vision of the regional plan. I want to be clear that this report isn't the entirety of our work, but it's everything regional planning related. This helps us both internally uh ensure consistency with the regional measures and regional policies but also provides the regional planning agency with data and information to help in our collective decision-m as a whole for the region. The format of the annual report is provided as a template by TMRPA. Um generally follows the modules in the regional plan. So I'm going to step through each of those modules, but I really want to touch on one key point for the 2024 calendar year. the regional plan was updated. So that was a huge work amount, huge work effort. So there was a lot going on this year in terms of the regional planning front. All right. So that first module we're going to start with is population growth. So the regional plan requires we all utilize what's called the consensus forecast. So that's a population estimate model that's developed by TRPA. We utilize all of these figures in our master planning efforts and our service related efforts as well. Um the TMRPA is also in charge of developing what's called the housing model which is a feeder into the governor's certified estimates as well. So there's a lot of population forecasting and consistency happening on that front. The portion of the regional plan also this portion of this population growth also discusses discusses affordable housing and kind of those factors of our population. So we have been involved in a number of affordable housing related work items including the housing initiatives text amendment. So that was approved back in the spring summer of 2024. Um and really the attempt there was to increase housing diversity, housing choice and housing supply. We also have a number of housing priority and funding allocations. That's all included in the report that you all find um attached to your staff report. And then the city has also um taken on the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. You're going to hear a little bit more about that next, so I'm not going to get into that piece specifically. So, next we have what's called regional form. So, the regional plan really establishes a priority hierarchy for development and kind of where we want growth to occur. So, the plan does this, the regional plan does this through the use of basically a tiered land use designation system which has different density and intensity and and development requirements within it. The city's master plan conforms with and implements this vision through our land use and structure plan, which essentially aims at maximizing our core area and encouraging infill and redevelopment. So, this really allows us to be most efficient with our land and also our service and infrastructure provisioning related to regional form. The development code cleanup was finally adopted in January of this year, but a substantial amount of that work was in the 2024 calendar year. The code cleanup is aimed at helping us better implement and clarify our code which helps us to implement our master plan which helps to implement the regional plan. It's kind of a an umbrella system if you will. Um the code cleanup also contained a few policies actually very directly related to the regional plan and that was really for utility corridors and sites. So there was some clarification directly related to regional planning there as well. And then a larger work item was actually our sphere of influence review. So the city's sphere of influence is the area that we intend to grow within the next 20 years. And this is actually designated within the regional plan. So it's really a product of that regional plan. So since the regional plan was being updated, we took on a review of our SOI to see if there were any changes that needed to occur as part of that regional plan update. So we suggested removal of certain areas within the sphere of influence. And it really was federal lands that were in our sphere. We had about 5,800 acres of federal lands. Um, again, in our sphere, that's the area we intend to grow within 20 years. As as many of you may know, um, opening up that land for any sort of development is literally an act of Congress. So, for that to happen within 20 years truly did not make sense. So, what we attempted to do here is be more targeted, more realistic with where we think we can grow and where we really want to grow. So, this helps us be more realistic and more targeted. It also helps regional planning better define their land use system and their tier and priority system. So this was approved by council and adopted into the 2024 Chucky Meadows regional plan. Lastly for regional forum, uh this is really just some case processing data and statistics um things that are generally again related to regional planning. So we had one annexation process last year for master plan amendments and we also began processing 199 planning and engineering cases. All right. For public facilities, the regional plan contains a table that attempts to ensure that adequate facilities and services are provided um at the time that development might occur. So the city has adopted what's called the concurrency management system which is an aspect of the city's master plan. So this is how we uh conform to that policy within the regional plan and and really implement that piece. Additionally, TMRPA develops and maintains a lot of facility related um geo GIS data. Um that's that spatial data, that spatial modeling piece, and that's information that we also have fed back here to the city that we use in our long range planning efforts. their GIS and analytical expertise really allows them to model different types of growth projections, model our population growth, and really helps us again kind of determine where do we think we're going to grow, what do we need for that type of growth, and where. Um, they attempted to hone that even further this year through the regional plan update uh as part of the public infrastructure plan effort. So, this was almost like a feeder document into the regional plan update and really many divisions here at the city um met on this, provided information for this, provided information to help develop that plan. And it's going to be an evolving plan and an ongoing resource really for us all to utilize. As part of the annual report, the TMRPA also requests um certain data and information to help facilitate their work. So as part of this report we provide them certain data, capital information, capital improvements data, um lists of assets, various information like that to help them in their planning efforts. Another big effort that TRPA developed and used to feed the regional plan was a natural resources plan. So again, we're very much involved in this plan update. Um this particular piece itself did actually drive a few policy changes within the regional plan which we will then need to implement into our master plan. Um but basically this focused on things like natural resource consideration areas so that we're all as jurisdictions again county the city of Sparks the city of Reno we're looking at the same kind of natural resources where we get that information from and able to look at a site and say okay these are some things we should probably make sure we look at make sure we address or mitigate if we need to um trails meadows trails is another big um overarching effort that we want to tie a little bit better into our planning processes so more resources for us all to utilize And the a last element of the regional plan is in regards to regional collaboration. So again, we were heavily involved in that regional plan update as part of the regional update working group. We were also involved in the regional transportation plan update as a region. We also collaborated on how to address a reporting requirement for affordable housing that came out of the 2023 legislative session. So all of us jurisdictions here in the north, we got together, talked about, okay, we have this report, how do we provide this information in a consistent manner in a a united front for the state and and how do we get all that information together and what does that look like? So there was a lot of collaboration on that front as well. And then we also collaborated on regionally important topics, things like school development review for example. Lastly, the report touches on some upcoming 2025 items that are in our workflow that are related to the regional plan. So again, that reviewing and updating to our master plan based on some of those policy changes within the regional plan. We'll be taking that on. The city is currently updating the housing needs assessment. Uh we're doing some education and implementation of that code cleanup. So as you may remember that was a 600page document, a lot of red lines. So, we are going around and talking to folks about what those changes might mean, how we navigate those pieces. The ADU ordinance, again, you'll talk about that next. Uh, we're going to continue participating, of course, in regional planning related efforts. And then another big one is we're currently in the 83rd legislative session. So, we're reviewing all of the different bills that come through. There's a lot of planning related items uh coming through this year. So, we are keeping our eye on that piece as well and and working with our regional partners through that. So, with that, there's a motion on the screen overhead, and I'm also happy to answer any questions if you have any. Thank you. Um, I believe we hear public comment next. So, we'll open up public comment for anyone wishing to speak on item 5.1, the annual report. Anyone? I do not have any correspondence for this item or request to speak forms. Great. Well, we will close public comment and then move to discussion or entertain a motion from the board. I think I know the motion. Let me just pull it up real quick. Well, first, thank you so much for presenting. I really appreciate it. It's very helpful. Absolutely. Um, I move to accept the 2024 annual report and forward the report to the Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Agency. I was looking for the case number. Uh, Commissioner Jackman second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I I Thank you. All right. Uh item 5.2, accessory dwelling units. Uh we will start from with a presentation from staff. Good evening, commissioners. Grace McAdin, senior management analyst here to talk about accessory dwelling units. All right. So, as we've kind of discussed, we've been talking about ADUs since apparently before I was born. Um, but some recent history in November of 2023, council initiated a text amendment. So, we had an affordable housing workshop. Um, one of those items was to allow accessory dwelling units and council initiated that text amendment and they said staff go forward but do robust public partic or public outreach because last time this came forward it failed because we felt like we didn't have enough public participation. So staff first started with a survey. We did that from January 1st until the end of February. And this survey was very general in nature. Do you like ADUs? What do you like about them? What makes you nervous about them? Um and we went back to council in March to discuss the results of those survey and they said you know what we want you to come back one more time so we can give you some very specific direction on um some technical aspects of this ordinance. So anything to do with height um setbacks any any standards that council really wanted to see in this ordinance. So, we went back in July and in July they said, "We think you're ready. Go ahead, draft the ordinance." And they kind of threw me out of the nest and saw if I could fly then. So, just to back up a little bit, survey results. So, this survey was I'm I I'm very proud of it because there's very few surveys that we do that get this type of participation. Over 2,000 people responded, which is huge. I mean, if you're like a stat a stats nerd, that's like a statistically significant survey um that we can use to um for so much data. Um in this survey, um there was some favor of generally favorable results. Um but there were also some concerns and so staff went through all of the um long feedback and we said, you know, what comments are they seeing? What what types of concerns? and we tried to provide those to council when we discussed the results. And then here's a map of these survey results. So green, and this is general. If you wanted to get more into the nitty-gritty of the survey, I could definitely provide that to you, but green was yes, we think ADUs would be great. Yellow was yes, but we have some concerns, maybe only in certain neighborhoods. And then red is no. So there's significant amount of green on there. There's there's some definitely um some clusters of red as well. Um, but when you zoomed into different neighborhoods, you could see that it was generally favorable. And I will kind of put the caveat, not everyone provided their address. Um, so, but this just gives you kind of a good image. So, now just to back up, what is an ADU? An ADU is a secondary housing unit that shares a lot with a larger primary home. I like this image kind of on the right of your screen. It shows that they can be detached, they can be attached, they can be within the existing footprint of the home, they can be an addition, they can be a garage conversion. So there's a lot of different forms that an ADU might take. And then this is just a draft. So I don't want anyone to get heartburn about that. We're here today to get feedback. So if you don't like what you see, there's time to change it. The the format is we will not change anything until we go to council. So if you provide comments today and you're like, "Well, wait, my comments aren't in that draft that you said you would put in there." Um we're just going to provide comments to plan uh city council. So, if you provide comments, we'll put those in the Excel spreadsheet and we'll say here's what planning commission had to say. So, everyone is seeing the same draft until we go back for a first reading. All right. Now, to get into the draft ordinance. So, when staff was drafting this ordinance, the first thing we looked at is where should these things be allowed? Because they're accessory to a single family home, it made sense to us, let's allow them everywhere a single family home is allowed. Seemed to be consistent with some what with other what other jurisdictions are doing. Um, and it it kind of just made sense to us if you have a single family home there and it's an accessory use that you can allow an ADU there. Next piece we looked at is lot size. So from direction from council and looking at some previous ordinances that came forward to council, there was a minimum lot size requirement. We looked and compared to some other jurisdictions. It's kind of hit or miss. Some of them do have minimum lot size. They're usually much smaller than 9,000 square feet. Some of them don't have any minimum lot size. Um, but we landed at 9,000 ft², like I said, with direction from council and based on that previous ordinance. Because I don't even really know what 9,000 ft looks like unless I pull up a map and start clicking on lots. I wanted to provide some neighborhoods that we might all be familiar with. So, this is on the corner of California and Arlington. You can see here that most of the lots here are going to be under 9,000 square ft with the exception of that one. And it's actually a commercial lot. So, if the ordinance were to move forward today as is, you would not see ADUs in a neighborhood like this. Here's another neighborhood. This is north of Plum. You can see Marsh there on your screen. These are larger lots, generally over 9,000 ft. Also, larger building footprints, but this might be a neighborhood that ads would be developed, like I said, if the draft passed as is. One more neighborhood. This is up uh north of the university. Trying to orient myself. north of the university. Um, Socrates is on your left hand side of your screen. Again, some larger lots, so you might see ADUs in a neighborhood like this. And then here's a map. Everything in green is over 9,000 square ft and everything in red is under 9,000 square feet. So, you can see there's a significant amount of lots in the city that are over 9,000 ft². The places that we've seen some concern are areas like the Wells Avenue or the Northwest where people would maybe like to develop ADUs, but based on this lot size minimum, they would not be allowed to. The next thing we looked at is number and size. So, pretty consistently with other jurisdictions, they allow one ADU per lot. There's a couple jurisdictions that allow as many as you can fit. Um, but we thought, let's just start with one and see how that goes. And then as far as size, setbacks, some other standards, we um followed other accessory structure standards. So today you can build a guest quarters. You can build it um depending on zoning districts, there's there's height requirements, setback requirements, and the ADUs would follow those types of standards with the one caveat. Uh council did not want a zero foot setback. So there are zoning districts where you can build even your primary structure on the property line and council said we don't want that. So, we said fine, no zero foot setbacks for ADUs. And I like this image as well. Um, on your right hand side, kind of just shows different depictions of maybe what an AD might look like and how if you're walking on the street, you might not notice the additional density. Um, but they're they're there. Parking and design. So, in the survey, one of the concerns was parking. We don't want our street full of cars. There's too many people. There's already too much um traffic. So we said, "Okay, let's have one off- streetet parking space dedicated for each ADU." And then as far as design, so we had came come to council with some design requirements requirements that were consistent with guest quarters. They actually directed us to remove those. So we removed those, but accessory structure compatibility would still apply. So things like roof pitch materials would still have to be somewhat compatible with the main structure. So, as far as public outreach, we have done a ton of public outreach, and I don't think I can stress this enough. I mean, we've gone to all the NABS two times. Um, one to promote the survey and one to talk about the draft. We held three virtual stakeholder meetings that were virtual. We were on the news, we went on the radio, I went on the um Spanish radio, I did press releases, emails, social media posts. So, we've tried everything and anything to get the word out about this um so that we can get as much feedback as possible. As far as what that feedback was, um in your staff report, there is actually a spreadsheet of every comment that I've received and then I also tried to provide maybe some trends that I've seen as well, but I wanted to just give you all of them obviously. Um some of those trends were minimum lot size being too large. So, in the in neighborhoods like that, Wells Avenue, the Northwest, the concern was they thought 9,000 square feet was too large, which is why I gave you um all of that context. There's concerns about short-term rentals infrastructure existing infrastructure maybe not being um good enough to uh allow for that addition additional dwelling unit, and then some CCNR concerns as well. So, where we're at right now, like I said, I'm here to just get feedback. So, I'd like you to tell me what you like about the draft, what you don't like. We're hoping to go to city council just for feedback um April or May and then we'll go back make any necessary changes that might need to happen come back to planning commission for a formal recommendation and then we're hoping for an adoption in summer. That's my presentation and I am available for questions. Thank you Grace. Um now we'll open this to public comment. Uh anybody wishing to speak on this item? I have a stack of public comment cards and we do we have anyone on Zoom wishing to speak? I don't have anyone on Zoom at the moment who has their hand raised. Okay. Well, why don't we get started with uh the people here in the room and we'll start with Greg Evangelados. Good evening, Madame Chairman, members of the Reno Planning Commission. For the record, I'm Greg Evangeladoos. I'm actually a trained professional city planner. Uh, I live at 1365 Hilltop Road and under this proposed criteria, my house would qualify for an ADU and I may need that in the future either for myself or someone related to me. I'm here to testify in support of the creation of the category of accessory dwelling units. Uh, but obviously I have some input. First, I believe that the minimum lot size requirement of 9,000 ft is too high. I would venture a guess that and I think Grace put up the map showing you know 45 or 50% of the community is probably excluded from this and I would just suggest that you think about maybe 6,000t lot min minimum and bearing in mind that current uh subdivisions are now uh 3500 4,000t lots. So on a 6,000 ft lot, it I hate to call it a glorified duplex, but I think you can handle it within the envelope. If you want to have a a maximum lot coverage, that could be a design criteria that's that's placed in on the property. Uh second, if there's concern about certain areas not wanting this, and you know, I've worked with the Old Southwest and I know some of the issues in terms of architectural compatibility, existing parking issues, then maybe both the planning commission, city council should consider excluding these areas. Um, and I don't know what the vehicle is for that, but uh there's there's some probably legitimate boundaries. And if there if those are major concerns that they don't want more intensification then I think they should be recognized. Uh third in the case of some existing properties where for example and you're talking about wells or I'm familiar with some property on Kaza if the house is 600 square ft uh why the existing house and the lots let's say 6,000 square ft change which is the primary and which is the secondary in other words allow for uh 1,000 or 1,200 foot and the existing structure becomes the ADU. do so create some flexibility because I think the purpose is to augment the housing inventory within the existing infrastructure and and proportionate to the community and you want to uh promote reinvestment in those areas. you know, the the areas that are the weaker neighborhoods. Uh if you if you promote uh development, then you're going to remove some of the the nuisances, the junk cars and and the weeds and so forth by allowing for development. And anyway, that's I appreciate the work of staff. I think that Grace did a very very comprehensive job and uh appreciate your time and interest in this issue and suggest that you adopt it at some point in time. you Thomas Tate. Hello. Uh my name is Tom Tate. I live in uh the Newand's Manor uh subdivision that's now part of District 2. Uh this is the fifth time I've talked before a public body in opposition to ADUs. Uh each time I've given different reasons. uh it's difficult to state uh more than a trivial number of reasons in 3 minutes and I've also seen overwhelming opposition in the meanings to them. Uh ADUs belong in multif family or mixeduse areas not in single family. Uh to summarize some of my previous arguments, single family zoning is a promise to the homeowner about the characteristics of the neighborhood. ADUs break that promise. ADUs appear to be free, but the infrastructure costs are hidden. Fundamentally, they're not fair because they'll disproportionately fall into older neighborhoods. Um, many of the lots that are 9,000 square ft are in newer developments that have CC and ours that will prohibit ADUs. But fundamentally, I think that ADUs are secondass housing. We need to come up with a way that people can well there's no possibility of purchasing an ADU. An ADU is always a subservient structure to a primary house on a lot. So it can only be rented. Uh also it's very difficult to provide private outdoor space and I think private outdoor space is a very important uh consideration for quality of life. Um, it's ADUs are typically behind the main house. They're like servants quarters. It's like being in the back of the bus being forced to be uh in a secondass area. It's just not a not a not a a vision that we should have. What we need to do is to find a way for people to actually purchase housing. This implies very low cost on tiny lots uh structures that people can own. In the Netherlands, I saw an interesting development where as part of a subdivision, yes, there are lots where you can build single family detached houses, but there also was an area of row houses where they're very very small lots, zero clearance between uh buildings. They're basically built up. land costs are very low and uh because people own things. They now have skin in the game. They now have the ability to build equity. When their income increases and uh they have more children or whatever, they have the ability to move out. People who are in ADUs are trapped and they can't get out. And we really need to come up with a better way of providing lowcost ownable housing for uh residents who are not affluent. Thank you. Thank you. Roslin Zimmerman. Can I speak anyway? You said I wasn't going to. Oh, yeah. I'm Yes, please. Thank you. My name is Rosalyn Zimmerman. I live on Nuland Circle. Um, I've lived in Reno for over 55 years. Um, my house is a hundred years old and has been single family for a hundred years. And I've been a realtor. I was a realtor for 35 years. The main thing I want to say is that this I've been to a lot of meetings. Um, this is the scariest proposal that I have ever come across. I just don't understand how a handful of people, many of whom don't even live in areas that will allow ADUs, can make a decision so important for the complexion of our city and surrounding areas. Um, when I was selling real estate, the most important thing that people wanted to know are the schools, crime, and what was surrounding them, especially empty lots. I can't imagine going and buying a house that's surrounded by single family and waking up one morning to feel hear the bulldozers because you get absolutely no warning. I think this should be by special use permit. And if 1300 people uh answered Grace's uh survey, how many of those are builders? How many of those are non-owner occupied? How many of those are tenants? I don't know, but I think most of them are going to be the people who want to build the ADUs. And my feeling is, and I could be wrong, that anybody living around the person who's going to be building and lives in a single family would say no. I think a 100% of people who live in a single family and bought a house that was next to a single family would not would understand that your property values are not going to increase if a multifamily house is added or an ADU is added to something next to you. I think most people want to build something but they don't want to live next to an ADU. And I sure appreciate you listening. Thank you. Thank you, Connie SA. How do I get my picture up? Oh, it is. It's upside down, though. Oh, there you go. Thank you. You can make it a little Yeah, I apologize. Uh Connie SA, uh thank you for letting me speak today. I believe most of you I believe you all got my letter. Um I mailed it and I emailed it. I just wasn't quite sure. I've uh gone to most of these meetings and I just want to say I've been here since the mid70s and I've lived in downtown neighborhoods. I now live off a plum lane and I'd like to say that while some people think that the 9,000 square foot is appropriate, most new houses is more house than yard. In our old neighborhoods, we have smaller houses, our lots are 6,000 square ft. So that doesn't sound like very large, but when you have smaller houses, it is. This is my little actually it's 597 ft house that I bought for my mother. She lived there for years. Then my disabled brother lived there for 16 years. Now my daughter-in-law, my grandchildren lived there and it's just down the street from me. And we have a huge lot in front. According to this proposal, it they're adamant that I cannot build a larger structure in front and then the smaller use the smaller one in the back. And as I said in my letter, possibly the cottage avenue would be one way to go, but that's only a maybe. And uh I'd really like to build this other unit and it's not quite double the size which is another thing in the proposed ordinance. It would have to be double the size. This would be 960 square ft compared to the almost 600. So I think there should be a little bit of flexibility. You should have setbacks. I agree with that. If you have proper setbacks so you're not bothering your neighbors, that's fine. The other really big issue I think is the shortterm. If you look online, there's a thousand Airbnbs and VRBOs that we are going totally unregulated. Other, as I said in in my comments in the letter, other areas have started regulating these and they're pretty easy to find if you just look up Airbnb. That's an easy thing for the city to do um because of safety and because of the tax revenue that we lose from hotel rooms. There's so many reasons that we should be regulating them and just public safety. Um I noticed today in the paper um this about the hair is uh because these people were short-term renters, they didn't have to follow eviction rules that I've I have another rental that I do. um then I know the the eviction process very well. Um but these people were given two weeks and $100 to get out. I mean I think we need to combine these two things. And uh another one, this one is where the city gave these folks $200,000 in concessions to sell them a piece of property with the promise they would give us six low-income units. I went there yesterday. They finished the the whole project and there are no low low-inccome units. Why isn't the city monitoring these? We are leaving a lot of money on the table there. Thank you. You Molly, would you like to speak again under Turns out I have more than three minutes. Thank you for your um accommodation to allow me to speak one more time. I think um we know in 2018 when this idea was tabled for good reason they had identified more than 12,000 lots within the city that would be affected by this ordinance at this lot size. So at the 9,000 square foot that would be in excess of 12,000 lots that would be available to be um built upon. And of course that doesn't include all of the surrounding lots that are impacted by that type of build. Uh the gentleman who just spoke is absolutely right. The um the homes and the homeowners in these neighborhoods, these are generally their only asset. It's their primary asset and most of the time their only asset. And so when an ADU or a short-term rental is built next door, their property values will absolutely go down. So maybe the property value of the investor or the um builder who builds the ADU, maybe their value will go up because they're going to be able to put as many people as they want on that lot. Remember, there are no occupancy levels or restrictions. But the surrounding homes, their investments will go down. And again, this is solely targeted at the middle class neighborhoods in this town and that's it. And so it's targeted at the middle class and their only asset. And you have to ask yourself, is that fair? And if it's fair, why is it fair? And the answer is it's not fair and it doesn't accomplish what the city wants to supposedly accomplish. It's not affordable housing. A thousand square foot ADU will cost $300,000 to build. So somebody who wants to put their mother in an ADU behind their home has got to be prepared to spend $300,000 to do it. The city has not done any outreach to the utilities that would be involved. Nevada Energy, Water, Sewer. None of those organizations are on board for this. None of them have agreed this is a good idea. None of them have agreed that the infrastructure won't be significantly compromised when you're running an additional sewer line off of 12,000 various lots in our city. Um the public survey that was mentioned earlier I would just like to say that I think the intention of that survey of course was good but unfortunately the topic of that survey was conflated and so we had ADUs discussed but we also had SDRs discussed in the same survey. So people were randomly responding to different questions on different topics. And when they were responding to ADUs, they were not advised on any level of what an ADU actually meant and what the sizes, the restrictions, any of it meant. And so the survey was really on many levels not of value. And I would point out that of the people that responded, almost 300 of the people who responded were not homeowners. they were not stakeholders in this particular matter. So thank you again. Thank you Mark Johnson. Good evening commissioners. Uh Mark Johnson for the record. Uh for those of you that remember me on this board, you know how hard it's going to be for me to finish in 3 minutes. So I will do as well as I can. I am actually uh here first and foremost uh as a member of the American Institute of Architects Northern Nevada chapter. Uh we were involved uh and spoke with Grace during the drafting of this. Uh we are in support uh of the overall idea of the ADUs. Um and have been very pleased with the process uh that the city has gone through. Um, and then stepping away from the AIA and coming back to myself, um, I was on the planning commission the previous time that this came through, um, not back in the 80s. I'm not quite that old. Um, but at the time, uh, this was, um, put through, uh, a little bit different than this time. It wasn't based on square footage. Uh it was basically a blanket acceptance of ADUs on all single family residences with some carveouts for some historic districts and some other issues along those lines. Um the commission at the time did not support it for the very reason that some of the the public commenters are talking about tonight which was uh there wasn't enough information there uh and it became almost a blanket zone change across the uh the city and there was some issues with that both at planning commission and at council. Um the approach that's being taken now I think is a little bit better. It's tied to uh the idea of a guest quarters which is already allowed. So there's a lot of discussions about hey how can this you know this whole thing is going to change the makeup of the neighborhood. Guest quarters are already allowed. The only difference is that the guest quarters doesn't have a permanent fixed in kitchen. You can still have bedrooms. You can still have occupants. You just can't have a kitchen. So in you know neighborhoods that I'm aware of there are guest quarters. Somebody sticks a microwave in there. it's not a whole lot different. So, um the argument of this changing the complexity of everything is one that um I'm not so sure holds water since the code actually allows for essentially the same thing now with fewer restrictions. Doesn't require parking, allows you to build it on the lot line. So the drafting of the code that has been put together has really taken into account a lot of the concerns that have come up that have been talked about for a number of of years. I think it's the right step to go. Uh it's an opportunity I can convert my basement into a second home for my aging parents. That would be ideal. I can't actually I can't do that because my my house is somewhere where that's not allowed. But anyway, if I could it would be great. Um but the idea of how this is going to change um everything I think it's basically a step in the right direction. It's just another example of a modification of the code that we already have with that. It's easier on this side of the board. I like this. Guys are doing great. Thanks, folks. You still got it. We still got it. Do we have anyone online wishing to speak? I do not have anyone online with their hand raised. Okay, we will close public comment and uh take disclosure. Do we do I guess we don't need disclosures for this. It's not uh we can open it up to questions and discussion. Go ahead, Commissioner. Happy to get us started. Uh sweet. Uh hi Grace. How's it going? Good. Um I have some questions about the specific about the ordinance specifically. I want to start with the lot size issue. Um I'll tell you generally I think the lot size requirement that's being proposed uh is too it's too high of a lot size requirement. Um and I want to understand how y'all came to that number. And part of my question is when I see the graph of respondents, there's a lot of green respondents in areas where it would not be allowed under the proposed ordinance. Yes. So, Grace McAdin, again, for the record, um the 9,000 foot lot size came because at the time 2018, I think when the last ordinance was proposed, that lot size minimum was in there. And I think part of that was because there was so much consternation of certain neighborhoods where these would be allowed. Um, and a lot of people showed up to to raise those concerns. And so when I went to council in July, they had identified they would like a minimum lot size and they said, you know, maybe somewhere around that 9,000 square foot. So that's kind of where we started. And we thought it was definitely a good place to start to get feedback on too. So that would we do have the um I guess the rationale of hey look we've provided that to the public. A lot of people think it's too large. So now we have the rationale to be able to lower that if council wanted to. Um so we started at 9,000 ft to see what people thought about it. Um with the ability to do enough public outreach to give us some time to modify that. In and I don't know if you know the answer to this but if you do that'd be great. In in other jurisdictions where there are lots size minimums what is the range? It's a large range. I would say in some of our more regional partners, it's more around 6,000 square feet. I there are jurisdictions that a lot are if they've done a recent amendment to their ADU, I've found that they don't have lot size minimums. Um they just say if you can meet your lot coverage, your setbacks, your distancing requirements, we don't care how large your lot is. Um, there's some jurisdictions that range from anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 though, I guess, to answer your question. Okay, I appreciate that. Uh, I would definitely lean towards the lower lot for my preference. Um, I have a question about the, uh, so there's a discussion about short-term rentals. I know Clark County, consistent with AB363, like implemented some ordinance that restricts STRs and does licensing. My impression is that when you're talking about short-term rentals, that's more of a business and licensing decision than a land use and planning commission decision. Sure. Have you seen that done differently? What is your current what are your thoughts on that? No, thank you for bringing that up. Um, at the time we went and got council feedback, short-term rentals were brought up because it was brought up as a a an issue in the survey. Um, the reason we put short-term rentals in the survey was because those issues often go hand inand. So, we wanted to get the data on both of those issues so we could go to council. Do you want us to initiate a text amendment on short-term rentals and where do you want that to live? Um, business license was also kind of going through a code update. And so, to your point, where does that live? Does it live in licensing? Should it live in planning? I've done some research since then. It looks like it's there's a little bit of both. If you're regulating land use, it lives in the land use. If you're just regulating, hey, you need to get a license and you can't be within 200 feet of another one, it usually lives lives within business license. So, I think it depends on what you're regulating and where it lives. Um, and there's also some things we can do within this ordinance to restrict short-term rentals if we want it to be specific to ADUs. But at the, you know, when I brought this to council, are short-term rentals just an ADU problem, or is it something that I can go live in my ADU and rent out my home as a short-term rental, too? So, if we're not regulating them at at a, you know, a broader level, then what are we doing? Yeah. Fair. um question about the one parking spot per uh the one sparking one parking spot requirement. So in the portion of the code amendment where it references this, there's a same requirement for caretaker quarters. How does that actually play out? Like if you have a house that has like a two-car driveway or two-car garage with a driveway, how does that like do you put a sign up that says like this spot for the ADU? Like just how does that work out? So in our code, um we have some tandem requirements. So if you're parking in your garage and then you want to park in your driveway, those have to be assigned to the same unit, which makes sense, right? Because I'm not going to go to the ADU and say, "I got to go to work. You got to back out of my driveway." Um so if you do park tandem, you have to be in the same unit. Um if and if you're not then you would have to designate on your building plans this is the designated spot for that ADU. Um and that kind of satisfies that requirement for us. Same with guest quarters. That's what we would do now. Look at the building plans. Um or a house multif family any of those types of development. We look at the time of building permit. I I think we maybe can share the questions. Same same. I might have the same as you. Go ahead. Yeah. I'm going to piggy back that topic, but go ahead. No, I was going to say maybe the other commissioners we can come back around. Oh, fair. Yeah, have to. Just to expand. So, the parking spot is specific to on the property, the one, correct? It has to be on site. It cannot be on street. Correct. Okay. Thanks. I I'll keep listening. That's clarification. Does anybody else have a question? We can spread them around. Go ahead, Commissioner Mer. Go ahead, David. Okay, Commissioner Jockan. So, we obviously have parking requirements already for dwelling units. Um, what was the logic in going with that one per unit standard and not just lumping this in with the one per 1250 square ft? Uh, perhaps adding a cap to that based on the type of dwelling unit that it is. So, we originally kind of went with that logic like if if it's an extension of your home, let's just lump it into that um 1250 foot requirement. a lot of times because we have a max for our um parking. So, I think it's not more than two or three per residents. And so, we said, let's just make sure we have one dedicated spot per ADU, even if the house is at their max and they're um they have to provide no more than three. Let's make sure this is an addition to that. So, that was kind of why we went with a separate requirement for ADUs. Sure. Commissioner for the record. Hey, Grace. Um just to kind of level set what problem are we trying to solve here with ADUs just to so we're all on the same page. Sure. I think um there's been some comments of this is not going to solve affordable housing and I don't think that that's the messaging I'd like to get across. I think that the the thing that this provides is diversity of housing options. So it might allow someone to live in a neighborhood where they might otherwise not be able to live. Um it also allows for aging aging in place. It allows for maybe some um kids who are going to college to live in the have their own place but live in the backyard. So from the um calls that we get on ADUs, those are the types of people we're seeing that would like to build one. So we get maybe 5 to 10 calls a year of someone who would like to build an ADU and it's usually for those types of reasons. Um and then I also think it provides incremental change. So, let's say you built the ADU for your aging parent and then in, you know, 5 10 years down the road, you're ready to rent that unit out or maybe you move into that unit and then you rent out your larger house. So, it just allows for some of that um flexibility, diversity of housing types and it it's just another way we can get diversity in each neighborhood. Okay, great. Thanks, Grayson. And just to follow up on this then, um, how does this draft ordinance compare to those in cities where ADUs have meaningfully contributed to those things that you mentioned? Sure. So, there's a large range of restrictions for ADUs. What I've seen is the most jurisdictions are actually leaning towards less regulations. Um, so we we tried to look at a broad range, especially regionally. What are we seeing? Sparks and the county both both allow for ADUs. So it allows us to look at what's been built, how are they doing, is it, you know, terrible in their jurisdictions and how are they regulating it. Um, and so we kind of built from those drafts and then looked at reg or broader broader than that new ordinances of what's happening and like I said the regulations are getting a little thinner um just because people are trying to promote these this type of building. Okay. And it's just the last one. Um, what parts of this draft are you and the, you know, your rest of the team not entirely comfortable with at this stage? Like where are you seeking guidance or particular input? Right now, we're just trying to get feedback on the ordinance as a whole. Um, there's nothing in this draft. If it, you know, went into adoption tomorrow, I don't think that we would have significant issues. There might be some clarifying pieces that we work through with council with, hey, based on this definition, would there be issues in in, you know, how we're issuing building permits or something like that, but as far as um the technical pieces that are in front of you, there's nothing that that staff has issues with. Like I said, we're on a feedback tour to just get your input on what you're uncomfortable with. Great. Thanks, Grace. I'll have more later. I have um two questions and they're kind of in the same vein. Um, do we know of the map that showed where uh was it 12,000 lots fit the parameters? This is where it gets a little complicated. I hesitate to provide a list because it doesn't take into account lot coverage um and some other pieces, but it's a little bit larger than 12,000. Okay. And of that, do we have a sense of what that number would be restricted to with uh existing CCNRs, PUDs, and homeowners associations? Like what portion of that goes away? Sure. So, we excluded PUDS from this map and as well as when they did it in 2018, they excluded PUDS. We don't enforce CCNRs. Those are private restrictions. Um, what was the other piece you had mentioned? Overlays. Yeah. Just either a homeowners association or a CCNR that would restrict um ADUs from being built. And then so we don't have a sense of how much of that is proportionally going to be taken off the table. And then of that I wanted to know how many particularly in the New Lands neighborhood perhaps in Wells and maybe in the Old Northwest have ADUs today because there are a lot of what you would call non-conforming single family homes existing in these neighborhoods. Do we have a sense of what that number is? So no. um I started to go through and try to figure out a lot of them were licenses, guest quarters or they were licensed before we had a moratorium. So I think in 2001 there was about two to three years where you could build an ADU and there's a handful out there. Um I it it would just be difficult to without just going through like a Google Street View, but there are a handful specifically in that area from that era when they were allowed or they were permitted as guest borders. I think that's really necessary information um as a piece of feedback, but I see questions coming from this side. We'll start with Commissioner Jackson. Thank you, Chair. Appreciate it. Okay, thank you. Sorry to go back to the parking. So, one spot on site, two things. You have any idea how much that will prohibit people that meet all the other criteria? Um, so that was one of the pieces we when we started this feedback tour of let's see if we get a lot of push back on it. And there was there's been a little bit of push back. I would like to build on my lot, but I don't actually have the room to also put in a parking space. But for the most part, people were okay with that requirement. So that was something that we were looking to get feedback and people thought that was fair. They can design it to do it under the unit or um next to the unit. So, I didn't see a ton of consternation about that, but also welcome to feedback. Okay. And then no real way to stop them once it's built and someone who's in the ADU is parking on the street. Obviously, there's not much we can do, but do you expect that to be a problem? Because I think that's a legitimate concern in specific neighborhoods. Sure. So, I'd like to answer this in a specific way. Um when we look at some other jurisdictions that have ADUs, we're actually seeing that the family size isn't increasing. Um but they're they're spreading out. So a lot of the people parking on this space. We don't regulate how many people or families can live in a home. And so I don't know that ADUs are going to contribute to that problem because we might just actually see that they're spreading out instead of adding another person. But if they do add someone to that unit, yeah, that's a growing pain that for sure we might feel. Thank you, Commissioner Belonemore. Yeah. So, um I I heard from your presentation that there's a concern about making the ADUs like look like the building that's already there. I'm a little concerned with that because uh there's been talk about costs and you can get like a boxable unit for like $20,000 and get it all set up for like $120,000. Uh, I'd be concerned that if we made it too strictly tied to the principal residence, it would make it inaccessible to a lot of people to put an ADU up. So, when we looked, that was why council directed us to remove the design requirements that we had originally proposed. Um, the balance we're trying to strike is you'll get some people that might just try to put the cheapest thing up, which might not be the most attractive. And it since it was a concern listed in that survey was neighborhood character. Um we tried to strike that balance as if if you can build this accessory structure today that looks like X let's carry that forward. Um so they have to meet those types of requirements so it's not as drastic of a change. Um but that was definitely a piece of discussion with the architects. They wanted the le less least amount of restrictions. So we tried to find that middle ground. Sure. I have a followup on this. So, I also have a concern about the definition of an ADU. Uh, so the phrasing is it must be incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the premises. I would read that as saying that you can't rent out both the house and the ADU. Uh, because the principal purpose of the residence of the premises would be like residential and that would be incidental use as a rental. So, I would be concerned that that would exclude that. If that's not the intent, I think we should change that. Sure. Um, we looked at some other jurisdictions and that was from some jurisdictions that do allow ADUs. We took that definition, but I can look into some of the ramifications of that. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Fuea. [Music] Hi, Grace. Um, so going back to the parking just because I'm a little delayed in my understanding of it. So when an applicant comes forward and you're looking at the application, do you consider the primary residence the requirement that they have parking? So they must have parking and then the ADU must have whether it be on street or on-site parking as well. Right. Correct. Okay. So for example, because I have a couple in my neighborhood that don't have any parking and they park on the street and I always feel like I'm going to crash when I'm turning. It's such a small street. But but in a case like that where this individual doesn't have any on-site parking, they could not have the ADU unless they created the primary residence as having a parking spot, right? They couldn't expand without a modifying the site to have the two parking spots. That's the intent, but let me go back at the language and make sure that that's clear. Um and if not, I'll provide that as feedback for council. Okay. And then would the applicants have to go through um like a cup or would this just be an entitlement by right? The way it's drafted is by right. Um there if there was support to have a discretionary review definitely something we could do. The reason we went by, right, when we looked at the county, they used to require a cup for all of their ADUs and they saw that they were putting the same conditions on each ADU and it was just adding time and cost to the people who wanted to build them. So, they ended up getting rid of that cup and just adopted the conditions that they put as standards. So, with these standards, um, we were comfortable by allowing them by right, but we could also allow them to require them to have a CP, which would allow us to look at each one individually. So, if I want to add guest quarters to my house today, what would I have to go through? Just a building permit. Just the permit. Just adhere to the requirements. Correct. Okay. Um, and then as far as characteristics, I heard one of the public commenters say guest quarters today are essentially the same thing. The only difference is a kitchen or burner in the house. So, what is can you describe for us the uh characteristics the characteristic difference between an ADU and a guest quarters? It's a full kitchen. So, and we have a very technical definition of a kitchen, but basically it's a stove. So, you can have a sink, a a um refrigerator. Um, but as soon as you add that stove unit, it becomes it typically becomes a full kitchen. Okay. And with guest quarters today, is there a requirement for a parking spot? Um, I don't believe so. I can double check that. Okay. But there would be here. Okay. Um, so I do have more questions, but I will yield. Thank you. Delvr, Commissioner Delvr, thank you. Oh, sorry. Um, okay. I'm just gonna stand over here. I have a couple of questions. Some of them have been answered and some of them I'm kind of trying to capture as we're going along. But um one thing I think would be important and I'm not sure how the application process would work in general but uh you know you talk about the existing restrictions um that are in place now size height some of the other things and I think it it would be useful as we're going through this process to understand what those actual restrict what the existing restrictions are just so sure it varies per zoning district Um but so each zoning district has a table and in that table it also describes what the accessory structure is. General rule of thumb is usually um a 5-ft setback for your side and rear. And then we also have some additional accessory dimensional standards that um you know 3 ft from other um structures on the same lot. The size so 1,200 square feet or 50% of the rear yard whichever is less. So you can see in this table um it varies per zoning district, but this will give you a general idea of how large they can be um and how far away from other structures. Got it. So each each zoning district might have a different they have different restrictions or and they're similar in nature, but yeah, I mean, you know, your m your downtown districts are going to be a little different than your large lot districts. It's it's a moot point for me because my CCRs won't allow me to have one anyway. But um let's see. I'm just trying to think of I think everything my other questions were um one so I was looking at some other cities and they talk about like having a concrete pad. Is that part of the existing requirements as well? So that would fall under our building requirements with how they can be built and structurally and Got it. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. I'm done for now. Who would like to um Okay, we'll go left to right. Great. Thank you, chair. Madam Chair, um just some follow-ups, Grace. Um I think on the short-term rentals, there was some public uh input on on that. I think there was one about having the short-term rental policy go hand in hand, and uh I think I agree. Maybe not sure what that looks like, but maybe something that can be further explored. Just wanted to throw that out there. I also think that the 9,000 ft threshold uh could be re-evaluated as well. it seems a little u maybe discriminatory or maybe willy-nilly at this point. So, that's something that could get behind as well being looked at. And just for clarity, um you mentioned that this draft ordinance doesn't really address affordable housing. Is that correct? No, I think it does address affordable housing. It addresses an aspect of affordable housing, which is diversity of housing types, which is very much associated with affordability. Okay. So, so how does it fit into the broader affordable housing strategy if it's just a part of it? Like um like what additional steps would be needed to make ADUs a meaningful part of the broader affordable housing strategy? It's a part of the broader affordable housing strategy by adding more units. Okay. Are there other components of that broader strategy that would need to be in place to move the needle forward with affordable housing? Sure. So when we had the affordable housing um expert Shane Phillips come back in November, he had brought up a couple of different strategies that we could put in place. One of them was unlimited density or um you know single stairwell for multifamily. Those types of things that we did take forward with an affordable housing initiative and a lot of those things were kind of modified. He also wanted like some missing middle um changes which were duplexes and forplexes and more areas by right and those were changed total separate ordinance. He also recommended that we adopt an ADU ordinance and so that's this part of that recommendation and was that recommendation for against or neutral on short-term rentals in tandem with uh ADUs? So, like I said in the presentation, at the time we brought it forward, council didn't know if they wanted short-term rentals to live in business license code or in the land use code. So, um, they directed us to move forward with an ADU ordinance if we wanted to. There's some kind of some slick things we could do within the ADU ordinance itself, but like I said, is are short-term short-term rentals only an ADU problem? I'm not sure. Do we want to initiate a separate text amendment for short-term rentals? that's at the discretion of council. So, that's kind of some of the feedback we're waiting to get from them and also this body. Sure. I I'd like it further explored as as feedback. And also, just we did meet with I think there's some misinformation. We met with Airbnb um representatives and they do pay a room tax. So, I I don't know um where that came from, but we met with them and they said when they rent out a unit, part of that fee you pay for Airbnb is is that room tax tax. And RSCBA also provided me a breakdown of kind of um different types of vacation rentals. So, hotels, motel, and then short-term rentals and what their room tax contribution is. So, they are paying taxes. Um I think that, you know, our our initial reaction is to regulate them, but I've also met with people who maybe rent out a room in their house as a short-term rental and it pays their mortgage. Um, so I think that before just jumping in to regulate them, understanding all of the also the positives that short-term rentals may have, there's also, you know, maybe uh traveling nurses, people waiting for their home to go through if they're in contract. And then also like maybe people fleeing from a bad situation have to live in a short-term rental. So there's definitely a need for these. Um, but there's also maybe a piece that we could regulate. Great. Thanks. Thank you, Grace. And if I can get afforded one more question. One. All right. Um there was concern about uh ADUs being built to adjoining properties and how that might bring down property value uh as a mythbuster question. Is that generally true? Is it not? Or is it more complex than that? So we've looked at some jurisdictions that have put in ADUs and generally we've seen if you do put in an ADU, it raises your property value. Um, I think it's different for each location. So, with what the county and Sparks are doing, just because our supply is so low, it's not having a drastic effect on these um property values. So, it be about Swiss or neutral, more or less. Okay, thank you. I think we're moving this direction. Okay, keep going. Keep riding. I actually just have feedback. Um, no, no questions. I may have some additional questions, but I want to let everyone get a chance. So, um I do support the minimum setbacks. I like that. Um I do think we need to decrease the size. I think 9,000 is too big mainly because it seems to catch capture the outer outskirts more than it captures the core. And I feel like for ADUs you would want more of the walkability, bicycle access, public transit access, things like that. Um the lots, oh yeah, I talked about lot size. Um, and then to the point on short-term rentals, I do I don't think that's an appropriate conversation with respect to this. I do think it's a broader conversation mainly because of all the things you touched on, but also um, shoot, what was I going to say? The short-term rentals, um, the bedroom, you can actually have a short-term rental in your house. I could rent out two of my bedrooms um, and that wouldn't be captured here. Um, so I do think that's a different conversation for a different day. Um, so those are my that's my feedback. I have other questions, but I will let others go. Uh, Commissioner. Okay. No, no, no. Keep going. Right. Go ahead, David. Commissioner Jockman. Um, so yeah, on that note about the square footage, do you feel like the coverage requirements and the side setbacks make it a little bit redundant to have that requirement of minimum square footage for the site? Not necessarily. I mean, we have minimum lot size for other for zoning districts. We have a minimum lot size where we also have setbacks and we have lot coverage requirements. So, I think it's something that we do regulate. Um, but it brings up a and we it brings up a good point of maybe do we need to be regulating lot size setbacks and lot coverage. Um, I don't know. I guess my my thought but that for fellow commissioners is just that if we're going to suggest that they go with a lower size but not tell them what size it is, it's a little bit difficult for staff to potentially follow. Um my next question is again back to parking. So um were side setbacks ever part of the discussion when looking at the minimum parking requirement for ADUs? Yes, but that five foot's a minimum. So, if you have to put your parking on the side of your house, um you'll have to accommodate for that lot by lot. Um could you pull up the slide on the various ADU types again? This one? Yeah. So, one one concern that I have and I'm certainly curious to hear from fellow commissioners about this one, but with regard to the minimum parking requirement, um the existing code covers one per 1250. Now, one thing that I struggle with is that obviously ADUs can take a number of different shapes and sizes. So, we're all inclined to think of one particular example, but it's a very wide array of possible ADUs. And I kind of feel like the existing parking requirements capture the potential need for the additional parking that could come from an ADU. So, I guess I'd be curious if any other commissioners have thoughts about that. Um, yeah, just very quickly, I I don't I think there should be not a specific parking requirement for an ADU. I think people can figure it out and if we want to encourage more housing, especially in the denser areas, I I don't necessarily think we should have parking requirements. I agree. Yeah, obviously with the level one, level two parking requirements that we have um falling in line with those, I'm not suggesting anything special, but that they just be considered with the existing requirements under dwelling units. Draculich, I think your turn is good. Uh Commissioner Vera, I have a response to you on the property values. So hopefully this is credible as a licensed realtor for 16 years and 400 transactions. I would argue generally the property values would increase in that neighborhood. So a conversion of an attic, basement, an addition of some kind. Um if it's integrated well and has, you know, holds the same appeal 100% is going to bring the value up with that extra square footage. There is demand for that. Multi-gen housing is pretty much non-existent unless it's a $ 1.5 million new build. Um, and generally just the the science behind that. You have a $500,000 house here. Next door there's a $500,000 house, but they increase their square footage and living with an ADU. They go to sell it. Definitely going to increase the value. Person in the 500k house is going to be uplifted by that comp. One maybe potentially by the buyer, but definitely something justifiable by a licensed appraiser who's going to see that this neighborhood, you know, adjust the square footage for the other would uplift that. So, if it's a storage container unit slapped in the front yard, definitely going to hurt the value of the neighbors, but that's unlikely. So, any my opinion is it would definitely uplift the uplift the values, my man. Thank you. You know problem. And then I do have a question. So, on the parking thing, I tend to agree with you guys. My only real concern and this is anecdotal and personal. So, I live in Old Southwest on a tight street that's not a oneway currently and it's fine and let's call it one block. you've got eight eight cars on the street and right now in any given part of the day, you'll probably get by just fine. But if there's another car coming the other way, you're pulling off and letting them go by. So my concern with the parking and I would say maybe it is something staff would be looking at you know case by case is if we don't have parking requirements and everybody's parking on the street and you add if you added six or seven more cars to my street you would find that we would be deadlocked if there was too many cars on the street. You literally can't get by and you'd have people reversing through stop signs and catching each other. I don't think you'd really see accidents because the traffic's that slow. So that would be my concern and also probably the concerns of many people in Old Southwest with those tight streets, but I'm sure that applies in a lot of neighborhoods. So my main question to you is if someone, you know, applies for an ADU, and I personally would not support the CUP, I would like to see it by right. Would you guys be looking at let's say you knew X Street had a narrow street and you do or do not have the parking requirement. Would you guys look at that and go, "Hey, we really can't put an ADU on this street because we're adding one to two more vehicles potentially." So, we look at that as more of a comprehensive analysis. Um, we're always kind of looking at infrastructure as density grows. Um, and what needs to be changed modified enlarged anything like that. Um, but with each particular building permit, we might not be looking at the size of the street and one ADU. um because the impacts there are not justifiable to say hey you can't have an ADU until this street gets large enlarged or it becomes a oneway um so we are looking at it on a broader issue but not on a case by case okay and that'd be my only one conversation to be moved to Clark cross is you know I'm sure there's hundreds of streets if not thousands that you're like okay you add too many cars on the street and we've got problems and we're switching to one way and we're being reactive instead of proactive um but that's just my opinion there I'm in report. If I were to fill out that survey, I would have hit yes, but in certain neighborhoods. That's my last comment. If I may add something back to that. So, I'd be curious to know if you live within a level one parking district because then that could be something that we just attach to per unit instead of going by the square footage which is in level two. And so, you know, that could get at his concern with, okay, that's the ADU is in another unit. So, that's going to be two units required in his neighborhood. I don't know if that's where he lives with regard to the parking level, but yeah. Uh, Commissioner Ber, um, thank you, Commissioner Draculage for that. And I do want to echo his sentiment. Um, I I get where Commissioner Belto and Chair Romero are at with just like, hey, no limits. Um, but as probably the only commissioner that probably rides his bike more often than not, and I'd love to see how we can minimize cars where reasonable and uh provide some thresholds there as as a way to also enhance multimodal transportation with any initiatives that we do. Um, my question is if this were to go into effect tomorrow, what do you believe the adoption rate would be? um like how many would we see? Yeah. So, like I said before, I think we probably get about I don't know, Mike, five to 10 inquiries a year on pod of people who would like to build an ADU. Um of those, maybe half could actually build one. So, I think it'll be some incremental change at first, but like I said, really what we're looking at is the long-term impacts. So, jurisdictions that have adopted ADUs, we're seeing maybe the first year or two, they're not seeing a huge influx. And maybe the first year we adopt ADUs, there's been a buildup. So maybe there are quite a few that are built. Um but it's long term. So after, you know, the couple years people will figure it out. They'll figure out, you know, how they how they work, how they're built. Um maybe the cost of construction goes down a little bit. And 20 years down the road, we'll see that there's actually been a large impact, but it's not as drastic as maybe a 400 unit um apartment complex going up next door. And then just for clarity, if you could enumerate those long-term impacts, what would they be? Just more housing. I'm maybe I'm not understanding. Oh, um you you mentioned that it wouldn't happen necessarily this year or next year, right? But it's more long-term and it sounded plural like impacts. So, I was just curious if there was more than just housing. Is there is there like how would you measure that impact? So like I said, I think the diversity of housing type, aging in place, um expanding family, more units, infill also, you know, kind of if we do have that more infill, um increasing the multimodal transportation in these areas. So there's a lot of different impacts that we might see just with infill in general. And these ADUs are using existing infrastructure, existing neighborhoods, so they're just a little bit easier to um see that density increase in some of these areas. Thank you so much. Anyone else? Do we want to go into discussion? Oh, do you have a question? Very few questions. All right, go ahead. Um Grace, with regard to the design requirements, this part I I didn't get to. Um, so and I didn't get a chance to review that section. So with the design requirements, can you briefly just capture that for me um just so I can understand and then respond? I don't know if I have a slide on it, but um with the accessory structures, um there's some general restrictions as far as roof pitch materials. Um it's pretty broad for these accessory structures. The guest quarters, this one is a little bit, this is what we originally had um suggested to council and they said that this was too intense and it might kind of limit some of the the ads that we see. So just accessory structures have a little bit less of requirements. It's a little bit more broad. This is a little bit more technical and more specific. Um but kind of same thing roof pitch has to be the same different um architectural features that we have to incorporate that match somewhat the principal structure. Okay. So we heard some comments I think commissioner Belto mentioned he doesn't necessarily agree that there's any design structures in place. Um so I disagree with that. I think there should be because mainly to Commissioner Adraculich's point I think it could lift all boats and we can have the entire community benefit um so long as it's done properly. So, not only the homeowner benefits, but also the community can benefit. Um, as long as it's not, you know, we don't have a pot outside and throw a pillow in there with a, you know, a stove. Um, and so would you say that, I mean, in your opinion, because again, I I'll be candid, I did not read the design standards portion, um, that this kind of reaches a balance between the extreme, two extremes. Um, I design is really hard to regulate because there are some instances where maybe a really modern thing might look really good in an old neighborhood if it's done right. Um, and so I think if you get a good architect, they can make it work and they can make it look great. Um, what we don't want to see is very specific design elements in our zoning code that just limit the creativity. We're just going to have kind of a one-sizefits-all approach because our communities are so different and so maybe what works in South Reno doesn't work in an older neighborhood. um makes a determination the administrator would ultimately right because it would be by right and so the things that we have in there are broad um but they they require us to meet some sort of compatibility element so they can't you know if their um house is in all brick they might have to incorporate some brick pieces in that ADU um so it's not super technical it's not super specific but we've seen it with some accessory structures that we do have so we have kind of a case study um and I think it works pretty well okay And then and then we to answer some of the public comments. We received two public comments today. One was regard regarding like utilities and sewer and capacity. Um in the event that that I mean that's not really I mean it's a little premature I think to consider that just because we don't know how many people are going to use this. Um is that has that been captured and do we even need to be cons concerned with that right now? I don't know. Yes. So, we've talked to utility services. Um, this map on your left is kind of the built environment. So, um, generally what's built less than one unit or one unit is yellow. And then on your right is what it's zoned. So, potential dwelling units. So, in a lot of these areas, it's it was intended to be dense. And so, the infrastructure was thought about at the time that the zoning was established on these lots. And so there is some capacity um for the existing infrastructures in the in these neighborhoods that were built to be dense and you know there's some space there and we also talked to them and they have no concerns about um some of these neighborhoods where they might be developed um they're they're comfortable. And then last lastly um someone mentioned oh yes to the there was a public comment regarding that you know um to the point of these not being able to be owned you know the primary residence or you know the parcel is owned by an individual and the ADU can't be owned. Um actually this is more of a comment so I'm going to take that back. Okay. Thank you. Are we ready for discussion? Uh one more question. I'll keep it short. So the infrastructure component obviously um there there's some level of burden of proof that may be on an applicant to show that there are adequate services that can support the ADU. What is the level of burden of proof that the city is going to through the building permit process uh place upon applicants? because we're obviously talking about very small individual property owners that are going to come forward and not have a lot uh it's not a it's not a big bankroll project. So what what's the level of proof they're going to have to show this the city? Sure. So we talked about that these ADUs would be required to get a CFO and so you will be getting um will serve letters from your utilities um and that will kind of tell us that there is adequate infrastructure for sewer energy things like that. Thank you. Are we ready for discussion? Who wants to go first? I've said my piece. Great discussion, guys. Very robust. Thank you. Same. Support ADUs. Wants smaller lot sizes. Want more housing. Well, go ahead. Sure. Um, support the idea. I think maybe before uh get behind a vote, I I would definitely want to hear from staff one last time just to highlight maybe the feedback we shared uh that they will take back to council so we're all kind of all on the same page of what was, you know, given back to be bubbled up both from this body and from the public. Um Madam Chair, could you clarify? Do we vote on this? How does that Okay, thank you. Yeah, this is purely discussion um and feedback which I have a lot of thoughts but I I I'll say that you know in terms of ADUs of course they amplify or they give lots of flexibility and uh in and lifestyle choice but really it's much to my own disappointment you know I don't see the APA association here tonight um speaking but we had to hear affordable housing separate from ADUs and that's a misstep in my opinion as planner. Uh, ADUs serve to close the equity gaps in our communities and affordability and we should be incentivizing because they do uplift property values for all levels for those at the bottommost who have the smallest lots all the way up to those with peripheral large lot estates. Um and with that I really feel strongly just noted as planning commissioner um no lot size requirement is an incentive. Remove the um building design characteristics. Let this be architecturally creative. These can be some of the most interesting designs in our whole city if we let them. Um and let's make this ordinance flexible for those people who own parcels with very small existing houses. let those become the ADU and let them do something more substantial on the rest of the property. I agree with the commissioners that said there should be no specific one designated parking space, but rather included in the overall parking consideration. And lastly, I feel very strongly that this should be not a discretionary permit activity that is a good way to waste money that can be used to create more housing stock at an affordable level in our city. Um, so those are my opinions for discussion for the feedback. Can I just say I love all of that, everything you just said. So just want to put that for the record. Thank you, dude. I could care about those comments. Commissioner Villaina, my comments are um somewhat similar, somewhat I disagree to some points that were shared. Um I I think ADUs are a good thing. Um I do think we need to decrease the lot size. I don't think we need to have no light lot size minimum because I think I think there you know just because the neighborhoods are different and I think we do want to have some of the communities um we we want to allow for some compatibility with the communities but I am again in support of ADUs um to the point of parking I that's more of a safety concern for me mainly because I've experienced it in my own neighborhood. I do live in the Old Southwest and um we do have a few houses that don't have parking spots on their home and have resulted in more on on street parking. I'm not opposed to on on street parking, but it does depend on the neighborhood. And again, every time I leave my neighborhood, I feel like I'm uh I'm at risk. So, it's a safety concern there. Um but generally speaking uh let's see the design standards I am in support of the design standards mainly because we do have some communities in Reno where folks do care about the character of that their community and they want to you know they choose those communities to live in and so I do think we want to strike a balance between the character of the community but also you know some flexibility with regard to design. Um, and yes, I understand cost is a factor and this is to allow for uh more affordable housing, but I think we can we can certainly strike a balance. I'm okay with um what is it the it's not having a cup as long as the administrative process is adhered to. Um and yeah, that's my comments. Thank you. This is Commissioner Delvr. I guess one kind of question I have is if we do have a minimum and whether it's 67 8 9,000 whatever um I'm not here to state what number I think is correct. If somebody wanted to put one in and did not fit in that range, could they then get uh could they apply for a different permit or Yeah, Grace McAdin again for the record. Um I believe at that point they would I don't think that they're excluded from the variance process. So they could um I think go through a variance and come before this board. Okay. Okay. Um, again, I I think uh ad I think it's a great I think it's a good idea again for everybody said it much more articulately than I'm capable of tonight. Um, and and again, I think as long as if there are some minimums put in place, there are opportunities for people to to file for permits um if they don't fit into those minimum standards. So, and the design question, it's um you know, it's interesting. I put a storage unit in my house and I had to paint it the exact same color and it looks ridiculous. It would have been better if I could have had a little more more design. Um and and so I think I I think to uh Commissioner Villoeva's point if I don't know what that balance looks like, but if there is some sort of balance you maybe suggestions, best practices versus requirements, I don't I don't know how that would work. But um again, I think there's a balance there somewhere. That is all. All right. Well, we're not taking any decisions, so we don't need a motion or a second. Did everyone submit feedback? Feel good? Okay. Well, we look forward to seeing where this goes. Thank you. Thank you for the hard work, Grace. Good job. All right. Moving to uh items number six, public hearings. Uh, we only have one case tonight and that is LDC25-000043 Earl Worooster and Corbett zone change. Carter, are you presenting? Sorry, I thought there was more to the script there. Carter Williams, associate planner for the record. Um, wait for my presentation, but before you tonight is a request for a zoning map amendment. This is specific to the um Earl Worooster High School and Corbett Elementary School. There's two sites uh two parcels associated with this project. They're uh the Worcester High School is located on the northeast corner of Harvard Way and Plum Lane. Uh Corbett Elementary School is just further up Harvard, generally located northeast of uh Villanova Drive and Harvard Way. The specific request is a uh zone change from single family 8 units per acre to public facility. The master plan land use designation for this uh these both properties is public quasi public. So there was some consideration during the master plan process for these sites to be um public facility at one point. Specific master plan policies to support this request are for education and that specific um the specific language is uh projects or um collaboration with the school district to support their mission in education. This is a map of the specific zone change. So, um, public facility is actually one of those districts that can go in any master plan designation. So, it's it's consistent with PQP specifically, but it's it really can go anywhere. Um, so, and schools generally are allowed within um the single family zones, but they're identified as the secondary use. In this case, with public facility, they're identified and and the purpose statement for for the zone as a primary. So, it is intended for this specific facility. From a use standpoint, I think it's obvious we're going from a residential zone to something that more prioritizes public institutional uses like schools. Um there's no um intent from my my understanding for the school use to change. Um but any major expansion um or any new uses that are added to the site would require an additional review. Um with respect to the adjacent residential from a development stand standard perspective, um the setbacks do change. Um so the rear setback specifically um would decrease by 10 ft. Um the maximum height um would increase by 10 ft. Um the caveat to this is specific to schools. There's special requirements for schools. Um currently um that there is no height limit. So the height is kind of a null issue with this specific use. Um and the reason for that is because for uh when uh schools are placed adjacent to residentially zoned property they have a uh height to setback ratio requirement. So for every inc um foot and height a building increases the setback from that residentially zoned property has to increase as well. So th this compatibility standard is is already built in um with these school uses to um to to make them fit within many different zones because they're necessary part of our community. Um this one change that does um have an impact um is that this would remove specific architectural requirements um for the development of schools. single family has um specific wall articulation and and ground floor interest requirements that would not be required within the public facility zone. Um generally staff is supportive of this is because um with its residential adjacency uh we still have architectural requirements within that section of code. So there will would still be some general compatibility requirements for architecture that would be would be present, but it relieves the school district of very specific architectural requirements that may compete with their um overall design um standards for their facilities. Um and that is important because it saves money when we start looking at the re redevelopment and remodeling of these facilities so that they're consistent across the um the region. Um, but it also focuses design standards so that they're serving the education environment specifically, not necessarily what we would be looking at, which would be the um well, I mean, it's still serving I think generally it's serving the the the built environment, but it does focus it on the educational environment um more particularly to serve their mission. Um, on the screen are the findings for a zoning map amendment. um staff um is a was able to meet all the findings including those um conformance uh standards with the Nevada Verizon statutes and on the screen is the recommended motion. Um I'm available for a question. The applicant um is available for has a presentation and will be available as well. Okay. If um I'm open to asking the commission if they want to handle this one in an expedited manner or if we'd like a full presentation from the applicant. Uh as long as we include disclosures. Yes. Yes. We will now go to disclosures. Does anyone have a disclosure? Uh or I'm sorry. We'll start with Commissioner Draculich and go down. Commissioner Draculich familiar with the site. Commissioner Alto familiar with the site attended a high school. Commissioner Jockman. Uh Madame Chair and Madame Clerk. In the interest of full transparency on 6.1, I'm disclosing Kim Horn's my employer here. The applicant is requesting a zoning maximum amendment from single family to public facility while my employer has been engaged on by the Wo County School District on other projects. Kimley Horn has not been hired to work on this application. On this matter, I sought guidance from the city attorney's office. I've been advised that I have a person a commitment to provide private capacity to the interest of Kimley Horn under 281A.065. Uh however, due to the fact that my employer has not been hired to work on this project, the independence and judgment of a reasonable person in my situation will not be materially affected by my commitment in a private capacity to the interests of my employer. Accordingly, I will be voting and participating on this item today. Please accept this disclosure and lodge it in the record for this meeting. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Roar Meyer. No disclosures. Commissioner Villaina familiar with the site. Commissioner Visera graduated from Corbett and very familiar with the site. Yeah. Commissioner Delvi are familiar with the site. Do we have anyone wishing to speak on public comment? I do not have anyone in Zoom. Don't have any request to speak forms and we did not receive any correspondence on this item. Okay. Well, we will close public comment and then open up to questions of staff or discussion or a motion. Just one question. Uh, Commissioner Visera. Um, hey Carter. So, why why why why the shift really? Why why the change? Just broader flexibility or more flexibility in usage? The applicant indicated that that was that was the intent is to bring um this site into conformance with other facilities that already also have the public facility um zoning designation. Okay. Um that that was all that was communicated. um they they may be able to provide more clarity, but I it's consistent with our perspective that these should be identified as public facility for consistent with the purpose of these. I I know I've spoke with the school district before and different matters before us. It seems aligned with maybe their broader strategy. So, okay. Thank you. I'm good. Madam Chair, I'm ready to make a motion in the matter of case number LDC25-000043 Earl Worster and corporate zone change based upon compliance with the applicable findings. I move to recommend council approve the zoning map amendment. I can make all the findings. Commissioner Vill second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Motion passes unanimously. Good luck. Um, now we will move to item seven, Truckucky Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report. I will just let you know we did not have a meeting, so that's a short one. Um, going to staff announcements. Mike. Yes. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick few announcements. First of all, I would like to thank Commissioner Draculich for his service on this board. As you know, tonight is his last night. Council will be appointing a new member at their next meeting. So, we will have a new planning commissioner at our April first meeting in April. Um, we did talk about bringing forward some trainings as we've discussed. However, I I would like to kind of maybe warn the commission that our next two agendas will be very heavy agendas. We have quite a few items to get. So, in the interest of of everybody's time and energy levels, uh, it looks like we'll bring those trainings at our May 1 May meeting. Um, quick council updates. Um, council did overturn the planning commission's denial of the Apadan data center CUP at their last hearing. At the next council meeting, they'll be considering the NDI office zone change, which you approved um two meetings ago. And then as I did mention at uh at our last meeting, both the commercial row entertainment cup, which was the OneUp bar, as well as the J Resort festival grounds, both those items were appealed and those will be um heard by the council on April 9th. And that's all I have for updates tonight. Okay. Um and now we'll talk commissioner suggestions for future agenda items. Uh I do want to point out that there's going to be a joint workshop between city council and planning commission on data centers and one of the tasks we have before us tonight is to pick dates that don't work uh for our group in May and June. That is direction from city council and uh we have uh I guess we'll take suggestions. Workshops have historically been sort of timed either before the night hearing of planning commission or city council. So, I don't know if that's a suggestion. Can I ask a question? Um, does the workshop have public comment? Because if so, I would recommend like allocating enough time. I would hate to cram this before a planning commission meeting. I just feel like that would be counterproductive. So, is there Yes, there are subject to open meeting law and public comment. Robert's rules of orders. How I do think that the emphasis of this meeting is educational and a number of different stakeholders speaking right commissioner Visera or yes correct so it's kind of more discovery uh an opportunity for ourselves city council some folks from the private sector that we've all lazed with and have been before us to kind of be subject matter experts and shed light on on uh best practices for data centers and development and you know kind of uh try to highlight how we move forward and so yeah really just more uh listen and learn and oh totally understand I just don't want to like allocate like an hour and then we don't it's not enough time if if I can I mean I think what what we're want to gather tonight are if if anybody has specific days that do not work in May or June to let that know I think as far as the scheduling of the meeting the time the allocation that will be determined by council and the city manager's office. Preferably not May 14th. Um are you sorry you all go ahead. Sorry. Don't look at me. We have to provide these right now. Uh yeah, they're looking for our insight. Is is it like daytime nighttime? You know, I think what what I think I would suggest is that if if everybody could I don't think you have to say the days tonight is look at your calendars over the next week. send those dates to Michelle Forier or Cali Shai and then we'll forward all that on to to uh city council. Is there any any day of the week or is it uh you said council meeting days or planning commission days? We would be looking obviously Monday through Friday if um and I would basically state if there's any days like if you can't make it during the day or can't make it at night, any conflicts that you might have where you know you couldn't be at that meeting, please let us know. Okay. And then ju I guess since we're on the topic of availability, I mean you said the trainings are going to happen. Boy, Draculich, this is his last meeting and then I'm my last meeting is in June. So you should probably just wait until after the new commissioners come on board for not this joint meeting but for the trainings because you have um at that point three new commissioners. So, just some food for thought. Or, you know, just two years from now and all. Um, well, can we have a due date for those dates that do not work? I would say if you could get that to Cali or Michelle within within a week from today, that would be very much appreciated. Okay. I'm I'll talk offline about the scheduling because I have some more questions about Okay. Well, we have a week to figure that out. So, um, any other suggestions for future agenda items? Seeing none, we will move ahead to public comment. We did receive one more public comment form. And, um, Donna Keats, Madam Chair, uh, I think we need to approve some minutes as well. Just I wanted to remind you, I don't think we did that at the beginning of the Did we Okay, I missed that. Okay. Thanks, turn. Hello. For the record, my name is Donna Keats. Um, I intended to come to talk to you about ADUs, but judging from listening to your discussion, it absolutely didn't matter. So, we can leave off on that. Although, there's one or two things I would like to say. First and foremost, an ADU is not a tool shed, and it shouldn't be regulated like a tool shed, which is what this proposed ordinance does and what all your comments do. And um I have I'm sounding a little irritated because I've listened to this planning commission so many times. Most of you I don't know. I've given comments. I've spoken to you about you and I've only seen a couple of you who actually pay attention to what your constituents are saying. Most of you use the royal eye as this eye. As that eye. As someone who lives in the city of Reno for now I don't know 40 years I'm really disappointed in this planning commission and not listening to their constituents and having it all about I there's a law there's a code their master plan findings which include preserve preservation protection mitigation for established neighborhoods which most of you just vo voiced total disregard for. So, the character of anything existing in your opinions should just be thrown out the window and let's have creativity. I don't know. I've been all over the world. I've lived in a lot of big cities besides Reno. I've seen what happens when there's essentially no zoning. And it generally is not a good thing when it takes off. So, I'm very very disappointed in most of you because you're not listening to your constituents and you're not dealing with compliance with master plan in terms of preservation and protection or mitigation of adverse events. You're just saying, "Hey, let's not do anything cuz heck, I don't live in that area where I can't park." Like the variance problems that we have about parking and parking pads that come to you because it's already so overcrowded. You don't live in those areas. Most of you, you don't really care. It's like, "Ah, somebody else's problem." Anyway, I'm just here to express my disappointment because I've done this so many times that I no longer feel like it's even worth my trouble to come down here and talk to this particular planning commission. So, take that for what you will. I'm not the only person who's had these feelings. I'm not the only person that says this behind your back all the time. And I just wish you would start listening to your constituents and just stop saying I all the time. Look at what's good for the wards that you represent. That's what I'd like to see happen. Thank you very much. Thank you, Beth Dory. Hi, I'm Beth Dory for the record and you all got my email. Um, the one thing I don't think that was addressed very well was the CCNR issue. And so I have three houses which have valid CCNRs, Martham, Green Ridge, and Manor Drive, and maybe more ranging from age from the age of n the 1920s to the 1950s. None of these old but valid CCNRs allow for either guest quarters or extra units such as ADUs. I will be forwarding these CCNRs on to you tomorrow for your review. When a homeowner buys a home, they sign that they will agree to abide by these CCNRs. If someone in my neighborhood or neighborhoods for which I own a house, which prohibit these extra units, they will have an injunction letter delivered to them quickly. Then number two, no mention of having a current survey done. Why? No survey is required before this infill. I'll be hiring a surveyor to and passing this cost on to my 50 odd tenants with an explanation of my concerns and the contact information to uh council members. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Is there any other public comment? I do not have any other request to speak cards. We don't have anyone in the Zoom meeting. Commissioner or Chair, I'm sorry. Just one from me. Commissioner Brouser just want to say thank you to Commissioner Draculich for your service. We're going to miss you. Thank you for the welcome when I first came on and it's been a real pleasure. Thank you. Yep. Yep. Same to all you guys. Been a pleasure working with you all and healthy discussion, some disagreement, and some a lot of agreement and I learned a lot from everybody. So, thank you, David. Good luck. Thanks for joining. All right. Thank you. Um, now we'll take a mot uh we'll take a motion to adjurnn. So, moved. All right. Good night. Hi. All right. Hey, you're awesome, brother.