Tonight is January twenty eighth, twenty twenty six.

This is a meeting of the Carson City uh Planning Commission.

Call the roll, please.

Chair Borders.

Here.

Vice Chair Crone.

Commissioner Brooks.

Commissioner De Christopher.

Commissioner Preston.

Commissioner Peterson.

Commissioner Pizell.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Crone, will you leave us in the fledge?

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

The public is invited at this time to comment on any topic that relates to a matter over which this public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power, including any such item or matter that is not specifically included on the agenda as an action item.

No action will be taken on the matter raised during this period of public comment.

Please, if there is, please come forward.

Anyhow, basically I've been doing less walking and more driving.

But the main thing is I was disappointed to find that artificial turf is coming up with the new residences off of uh silver uh silver oak area in the in the lawns.

And instead of having zero uh landscaping be maybe some natural rock or uh some sort of uh pollinator uh rely or I'm a little more nervous and normal.

Anyhow, you know, plants that will really help sustain the insect life around here.

uh uh silver uh silver oak area in the in the lawns and instead of having zero uh landscaping be maybe some natural rock or uh some sort of uh pollinator uh rely or uh I'm a little more nervous than normal anyhow uh you know plants that will really help sustain the insect life around here artificial turf is going to not only heat their area and it's gonna bother their trees and it's not gonna really be very warm or cuddly type situation cement brick stone and there's several other things that are covering the earth now and we just can't handle that besides the streetways are wide and such we just don't have available spaces for our water through the little rain we will soon be getting I'm hoping but we're looking at hot times and when they're not hot they're gonna be cold cold times as far as I've heard of weather and such it's gonna go from one extreme to others and it's not going to be our natural seasonal type goabouts so I really like to encourage that we don't allow artificial turf I mean stone with the proper straining and weed protection underneath would still allow the water to penetrate it and it would still provide for the trees around it and such and I don't think people are understanding that doing that limits what their trees are getting with their natural watering.

Thank you very much and I appreciate the fact that you're still all at it and thank you.

Thank you.

Yes ma'am my name is Kathleen Beasley um I also I already submitted a letter but I wanted to speak to a couple of more points I'm a resident of the prison hill area and I drive east oh I'm sorry and so I'm speaking about the state's request to be excluded from the master plan I drive east on on East Fifth and Roop almost daily I play bridge at the senior center I volunteer at Browser Books my best friend lives in the Sea Hill section.

So I feel like out of all the places I don't know in this town that's one I happen to know really well and it bothers me a great deal uh to see the state want to be want to be excluded from actually some very minor requirements and so I uh want to thank the commission for holding firm in this last two meetings um and I'm going to encourage you to reject their request today in my letter I talked about uh finding one which the staff seem to find to be okay they seem to think you could find that this request was in compliance with that I don't understand that because it definitely speaks to policies and one of the key policies is for the downtown to have charm and pedestrian walkability and access and so that is a policy that their request does not comply with and so I think finding one is not something you can find that they're in substantial compliance with finding three I think everyone seems to understand that the conditions just haven't changed that much so I won't reiterate what I said in the letter but the most important part to me is if you give them if you allow them to wiggle out from under this policy now then you have set a precedent for when other big projects come along specifically the Hop and May Adams Foundation proposal for the downtown area and that would really uh worry me and so I guess I wanted to emphasize that many of us moved here I'm sorry I'm not a native but many of us moved here we didn't move to Reno we didn't move to Las Vegas I could have moved to anywhere in the world I chose here because of the Kit Carson Trail and the historic homes so I'm a nerd but I moved here I've lived in California where you can't build anything I've lived in Texas where you can build anything you want and it shows so I was hoping I picked a community where there would be rules that would allow you to do reasonable things and that's all I'm asking you to do is stick with the rules and ask the state to comply thank you.

Thank you yes sir push push the button until it's green there you go good evening my name is Rick Garcia I live at 64 Pilot Peak Road or I mean court excuse me and that's closest to the agenda item MPA 2025 triple zero five I originally asked for time to speak because I anticipated having to come up here and argue a point pro or con on that particular item uh the reason that I'm here is to say thank you and especially to Heather Monzo because you have a civil servant that took the time to uh listen to a uh citizen that was unfamiliar I worked in city government for a long time but never in planning so I I just didn't know about certain things and she took the time to educate me and I gotta tell you she sent me about a a thick paragraph and she taught me a lot real quick and and I appreciate it and I think so do my neighbors all the all the neighbors in that cul-de-sac were a little concerned because we got notified late we didn't know what was happening until we talked to Heather or emailed Heather so I want to thank you and I want to thank Heather so you're not gonna get a complaint tonight so thank you.

All the all the neighbors in that cul-de-sac were a little concerned because we got notified late.

We didn't know what was happening until we talked to Heather or emailed Heather.

So I want to thank you, and I want to thank Heather.

So you're not going to get a complaint tonight.

So thank you.

Not yet.

Not yet.

Not yet.

We'll see what you do with it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Sandra Owens, and I'm here to speak about the Hoppin May's Foundation.

I was told or under the understanding that it was on the agenda tonight, but since I hired somebody to cover for me at the bar, I'm gonna go ahead and say what I have to say.

So I just want to be very clear.

Um I've read his proposal.

I am on the outset.

I am I support Mr.

Neighbor's right to develop his property, and I agree that the development should proceed with the within the framework of the master plan.

My concern is not with the development itself, but it's with how the project is structured and what it requires from the public in order for private phases to move forward.

This proposal is broken into three phases, yet two phases, two and three cannot be accomplished without phase one.

This is the construction and their approval of the new city hall.

This first phase is not a private decision.

It commits the city and its residents to a 60,000 square foot city hall building with a parking structure, at least a cost of uh over two million a year for over 30 years before we even own the building.

This is a significant and long-term public obligation.

I struggle to understand the necessity of a building that size for a community of roughly 60,000 residents, particularly when cities when most city services are now conducted online, and that it's rarely aligned at the city offices in person.

If there's a legitimate need for expanded facilities, that need should be evaluated independently and transparently, not embedded as a prerequisite requisite for multi-phase private development.

Context matters.

Residents were recently told by city leadership that because of tax sales increase did not pass, Carson City lacks sufficient funding for road maintenance.

The conditions of our streets makes that clear, especially in residential areas where property owners are already paying for that infrastructure.

Also, against that backdrop, committing to a 30-year obligation exceeding two million dollars annually feels irresponsible and misaligns with the priorities.

Residents are being told that we cannot afford.

Residents are being asked to accept deteriorating infrastructure by simultaneously underwriting a long-term lease obligation.

The contradiction deserves careful scrutiny before moving forward.

So good planning is not just about what we can build, but it's about should it be built, when, and who's at who's at expense for it.

So I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Any other public comment at this time?

Okay.

I'm just gonna sign in from last time.

Yeah, Danny, you only give one shot at the I just didn't get signed in.

All right.

Agenda item 5A.

Uh let's see.

Minutes of the December 16th, 2025 meeting.

What records?

Which one?

Yeah.

Let me do it after this.

Okay.

All right, is there any further uh additions or corrections to the minutes?

We need a motion to approve.

Motion by Commissioner Preston.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Commissioner Prazzell.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

I'll need to obtain.

Uh excuse me, Mr.

Chair.

I'll need to abstain.

I was not at the uh December 16th meeting.

Okay.

And before we start on the agenda, I would like to mention the fact that we did receive a document from uh Bill to Wind on their research, and every member has a copy.

So thank you for that.

It's not on the agenda tonight.

Okay, meeting item 6A, LU 2025-0410 discussion and possible action regarding a request from the city, Carson City Public Works for a special use permit to allow for the construction of a new 18,500 square foot tipping station and associated site work on the site zone uh public recreational located at the Carson City Landfill, 3600 Flint Avenue, APN number 01069102.

Heather.

Good evening.

Heather Manzo.

Hello.

Yeah, yours are all turned down, mine's turned up.

So I'll sit close.

Heather Manzo for the record.

So this request is for a landfill tipping station, a new structure within the landfill site.

As we can see from the overview here, the parcel is quite sizable.

And the closest uh property line from the proposed building is about 240 feet away, which is that northern property line.

Um so in the staff report, first paragraph under the project description is um a description of what a tipping station is, which is essentially uh roofed structure by which um uh customers can come in and dump their uh trash uh at the landfill site, and then um staff can sort the materials that are dumped at this site, sort them into um trucks for distribution to appropriate uh areas for uh uh disposal.

So um with this, the proposed building is shown on the site, and there are some site improvements, including some access ways and and some grading associated with it that are being proposed.

Um essentially uh the site is already disturbed within this area.

These improvements are really to just uh facilitate um the new structure and to make improvements to existing uh disturbed areas within the landfill site.

Um and the intent for public works to bring this forward is to consolidate customer access within the landfill area.

Right now, customers have access to multiple places within uh the landfill uh property, and this will help consolidate customer access to this one location, and then staff can move about uh the materials that are placed here to where they need to go.

And um Guillermo Munoz is here with uh public works to answer any questions you may have about operations current and how they may look after this is uh online.

Uh so in terms of the structure, it's it's pretty basic in terms of what's proposed.

It's a metal building with some um openings and bays, and uh the proposed structure is 38 feet tall.

And with that, uh, because this is in a public regional uh zoning district, our code leaves the special use permit to define what the setbacks are going to be and also what the maximum building height will be.

So condition five within the staff report recommends the the parameters for which the setbacks and the maximum building height uh will be placed for this project.

So staff is recommending approval of the request.

I didn't receive any public comments on this, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

And the city's gonna be the applicant.

Yes, the city's the applicant on this.

Okay, are they here?

Are there any questions for staff?

Uh Commissioner Crone.

Yeah, um, Guillermo, with the go back to the site plan if you would, Heather.

Um help me uh help me just orientate myself.

Uh, where is the way station added in relationship to this project out there?

The and uh the fee station, the way station.

Girl Munoz Public Works.

So the way station is not actually shown on this parcel, it's gonna be on the parcel adjacent to it to the north.

Um you'll pass the fee station in order to get to this proposed building right here.

Okay, so this is actually in the land in so you you do have to transverse that way station to get to this facility.

You do, you do.

It'll just make it easier for the the residents of Carson, people who actually go to the landfill um just to drop off all their trash.

Okay.

In the sighting of the building, did you take into consideration uh the disc golf course and the RC model airplane facility?

I'm sorry, with the with the sighting of the building.

The siding that we have proposed is consistent with all the other facility buildings that we have around town, and that's what we based it on.

Oh no, I guess let me let me rephrase my question.

Can the can you see the this um tipping station from the disc golf course and or the model airplane?

No, you shouldn't be able to.

Um, if like anyone has ever been to the landfill, you know when you go through the way station, you end up having to go further.

So ends up being like a little bit of a hole in the landfill, and it's already basically at the uh proposed level.

Not much grading is going to change, so you will not be able to see it.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Brazil.

Thank you.

Um just a quick question.

Will there be a separate area designated to drop off um non-wider non-water-based paints um and other materials such as that that can't be immediately disposed of in the in the landfill?

Hazardous materials will have uh a separate station, and this will actually facilitate that because we'll be able to get better eyes on what's coming into the landfill.

Um I know with a lot of like the lathole fires, a lot of hazardous materials which shouldn't go into landfill or getting you know disposed into landfill, so it'll help with all that.

Thank you.

Yeah, Mr.

Preston.

I think this is a terrific idea.

Uh I lived in another municipality and I had a company that we did a lot of trash.

The only thing that I would say on this one is that what we actually had is we had a metal barrier where you would back up to so that your vehicle couldn't go into the thing, is instead of just a yellow line.

So some kind of a barrier, but you were still able to get your trash into the down area where you guys are sorting and cleaning.

Um I think that it's a great idea because I also watch from my house, I see the landfill on fire a lot.

And so it's a concern about whether or not that could actually go into the pinions.

This will eliminate a lot of that.

It'll eliminate a lot of the things that people hide when they go out and dump.

So personally, I think it's a I think it's a win.

So thank you.

There are five conditions of approval.

Have you read them and are they acceptable?

I did, and they are.

Okay.

Is this a funded project?

Yes, locally funded.

You've got the money.

We do.

And when are you going to start?

It's um well we're hoping to put this out to bid relatively soon, hopefully this month, and depending on material lead times, it could go up anywhere this summer to late summer, start of construction.

Okay, so you think you're trying to be done by fall?

No, this will take over 200 working days.

Okay.

All right.

Mr.

Brazil.

All right.

Chrome.

Oh, no, that's fine.

Yeah, one last question, Guillermo.

So as I understand it, uh, or hopefully understand, but I think I understand it, is that they would come through the way station, the public would come through the way station, they would come to the tipping station, they would drop their traffic off, so that they're not having access to anywhere else within the uh landfill.

So this is basically where the public ends up and everything else uh gets transferred by staff, city staff, is that right?

For the majority of the items that residents have, yes.

The commercial players will still be able to go into the landfill and conduct business as usual, and a few other special players too.

But for most residents and customers, this will be where they stop.

Okay, thank you.

Are are all these roads paved?

The or are they compressed?

The we do have proposed payment on this project, and you can see it in the uh shaded uh gray.

It's hard to tell on here, but um there are a few roads which are not paved, and we are leaving those be, but where the public can access, we want those to be paved.

Okay, so the the gray in this in the site plan is all gonna be paved.

Yep, and the road running east-west, that's going to be widened as a part of this project.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Yes.

Mr.

Gimo, um, is this a drive-in drive out?

You know, do cars actually go inside the building to dump, or do they like back up to it and uh and just dump outside the building?

They will end up going into the enclosed structure, um, but there will be staff there at all times letting you know where you can dump and where you can't dump.

Uh, how many cars will it hold like it wants if you're busy?

You know, as of right now, we haven't actually count how many cars, but we have sizes to other similar size uh counties, and we expect it to not be an issue.

So you like would pull in and then back into the pile just like you would outside at the dump.

Is that kind of how that would work?

Exactly.

Yeah.

Cool.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

I utilize the dump on a monthly basis required because I have a waiver that allows me to do that, but I have to do it every month.

And I've gone up there during weather where I'm soppy doopy, and my tires are my vehicle comes down a mud pile.

And I've been up there when it's been slippery and yeah, as goose knot or poop, whichever way you want to go.

The main thing is is that this will be a relief to my tires.

I've had two flat tires during the time that I've utilized the dump, and most of the time it's after a good rain and there's a good mud that holds those nails and such upright.

My concern is that in a location that has a roof on it and has all of that, the debris and such that I usually breathe because of people dumping on one side or the other of me is gonna go somewhere else.

And if I plan well, I can be upwind of those situations.

In a building, I'm not sure how far I'll be able to get out.

Also, the vehicles that are used to push that into another uh unit or into a hole or whatever they're gonna decide that dumping space are gonna have to move past my little vehicle, and I am concerned about that.

But I I also am concerned about the fact that this is huge.

This is going to be a big construction, and there was consideration that we're running out of space in their dump.

And we've already had a new weight station put in that was a very big cost with the asphalt and different things that they did.

That's a structure that should be there for ages.

But as the dump space expands, those areas are going to have to be saved for the building.

And I'm concerned because I just don't see how I haven't gotten a clear picture of where the dump's gonna move to, how big it's gonna expand to, or where changes are gonna be.

But I've heard they're gonna be big changes, and is the structure already set to be in an area that will no longer be helpful after the extension of the rest of the dump.

So I just didn't get enough of a picture of the location.

Like Vern, I'm excuse me for using first names.

I uh um, but just not enough info to have a good decision on this, but it will save me a run up the hill, maybe not get the same view I do from up there, but thank you.

Any other comment?

Nope.

Well, you may, yeah.

Just to respond to a few of Denny's points.

Uh that facility is proposed as a part of the landfill master plan and to be fully functional throughout the expansion of the landfill as well.

Okay, and what's the length of time on the landfill?

The current service life with the expansion.

I couldn't give you an exact number right now.

You know, yeah.

More than 10 years, more than 20 years, yeah, yeah.

More than 30 years.

Uh we have we have that land through the BLM that was given to the city.

We plan to expand to that area, and that'll extend longevity for a long time.

All right.

Longer now be here.

Okay.

Any other any other comments from the board?

How about a motion?

I'll move to approve the special use permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the staff report.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I second.

All right.

A motion by Commissioner Brazil, second by Commissioner De Christopher.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, me.

Um may I ask Girma a couple questions real quick?

Similar related topic on the dump.

It hasn't to do with the project, it's just uh just a general question.

I would you maybe you can go talk to him and when we're not here.

Oh, okay, because that was the the concern I have concern, but he references a master plan, and it would be nice to get some information on that master plan.

So anyway, okay.

I'll also go back and I'll send that information to you, Vern.

I don't have that information present with me right now.

No, no, that's okay.

I'm just I'm just thinking, you know, you Denny brought up a lot of good points, and I think a lot of them had to do with what is the plan up there.

And so I didn't know if that would be something that might be interesting for the commission to to be involved with, or at least understand what is happening up there.

That's all.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

LU 2025-0411 discussion and possible action regarding a request from Meyer's pipeline for a special use permit to allow for outside storage of equipment and materials and a permanent placement of a metal storage container on two abutting parcels zone air industrial park located at 2451 and 2501 Arrowhead Drive, APN 005 062-04 and 005-062-05.

Heather.

Good evening, Heather Manzo again for the record.

Uh so this project was before the planning commission in July uh for outside storage.

Um, and at that time, because they had been uh operating outside of code conformance, there was a condition that required them to come in with their permit application within 30 days of the planning commission's approval, um, and then subsequently to uh commence construction of that permitted work within six months.

Um the applicant noted that they inadvertently missed that 30-day timeline, and the permit application came in about two or three months after the planning commission approved the request.

So the SUP had expired.

Um so we are back before you this evening.

Um the site is on the south side of Arrowhead Drive.

And um, I did want to note this is not in your packet.

This is an updated uh site plan that was provided by the applicant a few days ago and provided as late material in uh yesterday's um distribution and also available online.

What this demonstrates, those four yellow pins show where the setback lines are in relation to either the parking areas or the outside storage.

So what our code says is that when you have outside storage, it has to be outside of the required setbacks.

Um and so one of the things that were out of compliance with our code is that the outside storage was right up against the fencing.

Um so in discussions with the applicant, they have actually moved um all of their outside storage to be outside of the setbacks as of this past weekend.

Um so I visited the site this afternoon just to kind of get an idea that the applicant had said some pictures that were also provided in late material, but I couldn't get a sense of where the pictures were taken.

So I went out to the site to just confirm what I was gonna tell you to make sure I was correct and and representing uh what's out on the site today.

So everything's been moved out of the setbacks and uh some um uh road-based material has been placed where outside storage will be located.

Uh and the applicant has come in with their permit for the pavement, which is what that 30-day requirement would have required.

Um so they they have in essence complied with one of the conditions that that's being presented before you this evening to apply for that permit.

Uh the hold that is placed on that is pending approval of the special use permit that's before you this evening.

Um, so where we're at today is the applicant is essentially getting into a really good place to be in conformance with the outside storage requirements as well as the conditions that had been previously placed on the project.

However, um the special use permit is still required in order for them to move forward.

So um in terms of the conditions that were previously placed on the project in July and what you have before you, they've been restructured a little bit.

Uh they're all still there, but I did want to note that uh conditions seven through nine on the previously approved project really had to do with the outside storage requirements, but in the previously approved project, we didn't have a timeline specifically associated to the outside storage compliance.

It was tied to the site improvement permit.

Um in this iteration, we actually have added a 60-day time frame for bringing the site into compliance with the outside storage requirements so that we know that there's a date and time from the time the planning commission sees this that the applicant is required to come into conformance with the request that's before you this evening.

Um everything else is essentially uh similar or the same as what was before you in July.

Uh so with that said, uh staff is recommending approval of the request, and the applicant is available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Okay.

Excuse me.

Heather, was it always one storage container?

For some reason, I thought at one time it was two.

Uh there is one storage container.

Okay.

Uh any questions for staff.

Seeing none is the applicant here.

Chris Foster Mirror's pipeline.

All right.

Chris, are you familiar with the eight conditions of approval?

Yes, sir.

And are they acceptable?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Last time we were here, you guys were going to pave in the winter time and we questioned the fact of whether or not you could get it all done.

And apparently we didn't.

So here we are.

Yeah.

Are there any questions for the applicant?

Um, yeah, go ahead.

Um so from a timing perspective.

Um, I know you sent some pictures, and I think just for the public, uh, since those pictures are there.

Could you kind of just kind of in your own mind um how you're going to make that timeline uh with the paving and with the all the removals just in your mind?

How do you think it's gonna um lay out?

Yes.

We've got the uh the setback is met.

The fencing is complete.

The only thing outstanding is the paving of the parking area.

The plan set is in for uh approval.

Just missing the SUP approval.

Once that's done, weather allows the paving will commence.

Okay, and you have a con you have a contractor in mind, or do you still have to serve the project?

Yep, nope, it's everything's set ready to go.

This was uh error on my end and missing a date.

That's why we're here again.

That I wanted to see everyone one more time.

Okay.

We love your smiling face.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, uh, is there any public comment?

Okay.

Hearing none, let's come back and further discussion, or is there a motion?

Oh, I'm sorry, Danis.

Oh no, no, it's my fault.

You were you were the deal is I don't stall on me.

I didn't have access to that gentleman before or after this meeting, and I'm sorry I missed your presentation.

I'm sure you could answer some of my questions later, but um, this was still relating to 6A.

Or are no okay.

So I missed okay.

You missed it.

I missed it.

Thank you.

Okay, is there any other public comment?

All right, now I'm ready for motion.

I'll I'll make the motion.

I move to approve the special use permit based on the findings and subjects of the conditions of the approval companion contained in the staff report, and that has to do with excuse me, LU-2025-04 uh 11.

All right, is there a second?

All second seconded by uh Commissioner Puzzells.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed, no motion carries.

Thanks.

If you have any extra, the mayor's back there shall take it.

All right, item 6C, MPA 2026-0004.

Uh we're gonna have one, two, three, four of these in a row.

Um hope I want to try and put a timeline to this because I'm not sure everybody understood it.

I had to think about it.

These are these are amendments to the master plan.

Right.

I can speak to it briefly if you'd like.

Um, I can do it or you can do it.

I'll screw it up, so go ahead.

I'm sure you'd be better.

Okay, so in the past, we've always had our annual master plan report.

And then based on that report, and you you review it, you make a recommendation to the board, the board takes action, and I've always taken that to be my to-do list.

And so we've we pursued um either zoning amendments, master plan changes based on the zor the board's direction in approving the master plan annual report.

Um this year, because we had the new Title 18.

I opened Title 18 and said it's supposed to do anything different for the procedural due process.

And what I read was that um the board or the planning commission can initiate a master plan amendment, and they must do so via resolution.

When that master plan amendment or that resolution is adopted, which initiates the master plan amendment, and think of that as the city making make an application because the board doesn't make an application, so they pass a resolution that equates to if a private individual made an application.

Then um we only have 65 days to commence the meetings.

So what happened was you all back in I think December looked at the master plan annual report.

You made a recommendation to the board, it went to the board in January with a list of changes, and you're not seeing the entirety of them because we only had so much bandwidth.

So you have, I think, three master plan amendments, maybe four on your agenda this evening, and I think you have two that will be coming to your next meeting just because we couldn't get everything done for this meeting, and those are all coming before you based on the Board of Supervisors resolution, which think of that as the Board of Supervisors filed an application, and we had to move quickly because after 65 days, the resolution's null and void, so we would have to do it all over again.

So hopefully that creates the framework, and on the substance, I'll let Heather Manza speak to that.

Okay.

So we're at 6C.

MPA 2026-0004.

Discussion and possible action regarding a resolution approving the master plan amendment and recommending approval of the amendment to the board of supervisors to change the master plan designation from industrial to public quasi public to quasi public for all 13.91 acres parcel located at 3000 North Lompa Lane Assessors Parcel APN 008 922-31.

Heather.

Thank you.

Heather Manzo for the record.

So as Hope alluded to, the board initiated the master plan amendment on this one.

And so as the colored map shows you, the current master plan designation on the northern portion of this property is industrial.

And the proposal is to change that northern piece to public quasi public to match the rest of the parcel.

So as the planning commission may know and the public may not know, the city does not uh have a practice of leaving properties with split zoning and split master plan designations because in essence it creates some confusion when uh properties move forward to develop with those two different designations.

Um and so as we are become aware of these situations, we do present them uh for possible map amendments.

So that's why this one is before you now is to create that consistency uh across the property with that public quasi public master plan designation.

And there's a church on there, right?

There is a church on the southern portion of the property.

Yes.

And so staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt a resolution and recommend to the board of supervisors to the do the same and approve the master plan amendment as presented.

Um I did receive a couple of phone calls just inquiring about the request.

Uh there were no comments in opposition or support.

Um, just looking for clarification as to what was before the commission this evening.

Um, and I'm happy to take any questions as they arise.

Commissioner Barzel.

Thank you.

Um Heather, just a quick question.

And um because in in my dealing in the profession, jurisdictions do it in different ways.

Um once you initiate a master plan amendment, some jurisdictions automatically follow up with the rezoning on the property.

In this case, you've got a um again, you've got that split master plan land use designation, but the entire parcel is currently zoned for industrial uses.

So at some point in time, so my question really is does Carson City require the applicant to come in with a rezoning um following whatever occurs with this proposed amendment, or will they come in at a later point when they want to further develop on the property with the use that's accessory to or you know in coordination with the current use on the property?

Um so as Hope had mentioned, sometimes as we're doing the annual update, what we do identify parcels that have some inconsistencies between the master plan and zoning, and we'll bring those forward for a potential zone change to be consistent with the master plan.

So if this is one that sat maybe to next year, we do have a list already being built of several that do not have consistency.

Um so this may uh end up on our list next year.

If the owner of the property has a project in mind and they choose to move forward earlier than we would identify it to move forward, um, then that is something that the applicant or the owner could choose to rec uh file a zone change and move forward uh sooner.

Commissioner Crohn, yeah, just a quick question.

Was this something staff picked up, or did the applic or did the uh church um folks come forward and say, can we fix this problem?

We have met with the church over the past.

Uh what happened is they um there were two parcels, I think, and they did a lot consolidation.

So um where that line is now between the industrial and the PQP, that was a uh parcel separation, and so with the lot consolidation it created the the inconsistency on the overall parcel.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, and to answer, I think Commissioner Pazell's question about when are we going to rezone all these things?

Uh as soon as we get a codified version of the Title 18, then we'll start that.

I'll just expand slightly.

Um this one, I I think your your observation, Commissioner Pazell is very good, and that you should you should couple them.

That's the better practice.

What happened in this case is you'll recall that upon adoption of the master plan, uh, what the Board of Supervisors said is in 90 days, we want you to do a list, we want you to do these listening sessions, take it back to the planning commission in 90 days because we want to verify we got the map right.

This was one of the ones which I think Heather Ferris and working with the church on potential development on that site, identified that because there was a lot consolidation, um, we now had a split designation.

This was one of the ones which I think Heather Ferris and working with the church on potential development on that site, identified that because there was a lot consolidation, um, we now had a split designation, and because this was sort of right in that 90-day period when the Board of Supervisors said, go do the listening sessions, talk to the community, make sure we got it right.

We kind of had um our focus was 100% master plan, and and I think that was a shortcoming on my part, and I should have brought the two together, but you're you're exactly right.

And but that was the background.

And in fact, this commission did adopt a resolution to initiate a master plan amendment on the subject parcel.

But since we didn't take action on it within 65 days, your resolution became null and void.

So I took it to the board of supervisors and asked them to initiate, and they did.

Great.

Any other questions for staff?

Is there any public comment?

None?

Okay.

Commissioner Bazell.

Um, I'll move to adopt resolution 2026 PCR1 and recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of MPA 2026 000 is presented.

All right, thank you.

Is there a second?

All right, Commissioner Preston seconds.

Any third further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed, no motion carries.

6D.

Heather, you're up for all these, aren't you?

Discussion and possible action regarding a resolution approving the master plan amendment and recommending approval of the amendment to the board of supervisors to change the master plan designation from medium density residential to open space for a 1.11 acre parcel located within the Lompa Ranch North Specific Plan area to the south of the southern terminus of the pilot peak court.

APN 004-422-23.

Thank you.

And one last time, Heather Manzo for the record.

Um so this is the one that the public commenter had spoken on before he left.

Um, and uh what it is is uh when the Lompa Ranch uh specific plan was adopted, one of the requirements of that plan it was that there are three major drainage ways that run east to west through this project.

This is the most southern one.

Um, and because the development is being uh developed in phases, this is only a snippet of the overall drainage channel that runs through here.

So with this parcel that was created within I think phase one, um now that it's been created and that drainage channel has been fully improved and the city has accepted it and said it meets uh you know code requirements, we've accepted it.

It now belongs to the city.

Um it has uh master plan designation of medium density residential, but because it now belongs to the city, that's an inappropriate master plan designation.

So as you can see, kind of on that left side um along Solomon, we have a couple other drainage channels along that roadway that are designated open space, which is appropriate for these channels.

So with this one, again, we're here um as a city-owned property to redesignate this to open space to be consistent with other uh master plan designations for this type of use.

Um so is to create consistency with other city-owned uh drainage facilities within this area.

So um I did receive a couple of phone calls and emails as um the resident had noted uh just looking for information and no other uh requests for um any information or or notes of opposition.

Um staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt a resolution and recommend the board do the same and approve the master plan amendment.

Okay, and for all intents and purposes, this is still a drainage ditch, not a site for multifamily.

Yeah, it is it is uh for drainage and will essentially stay that way for for the long term.

Any further any discussion for the staff?

Okay.

Um Heather, could you pull up that other slide again?

So there are drainages like in the HDR.

Is that something that when that comes through, although some of the development has already happened there, does that become open space as well, the connecting to it or not?

Or is or am I not understanding that?

Uh I'll go ahead and turn that over to Steven in terms of the HDR piece, because that's multifamily.

Right.

Um, so the multifamily piece, uh there is an easement for the uh the drainage channel going through there, so it's not a separate parcel like this, and then just east of this, there's a future phase since that map hasn't recorded again.

And then just east of this, there's a future phase since that map hasn't recorded again.

The parcel hasn't been carved out yet.

So those are future future parcels that will have to get cleaned up at that point.

Okay.

So this isn't necessarily becoming a landlocked little open space spot, I guess.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Any public comment.

Thank you, Chair Denny French, Carson City, Nevada.

My notes suggested this area is a a wet letter uh wetland and its environmentally sensitive area.

And I was just wondering when you say open space, what activities besides basic um trails that might go through it or some disruption.

Um so I had more questions about that than I could find in in my research.

And um also those houses that are benefiting from having that great space behind them, we are going to be maintaining that land.

Is that correct?

And so my thing is if if we are, there's no HMO that will be covering any of those costs.

And I apologize because my studies were limited on this particular item.

But I if that's something I could get answered later from Hope, that'd be great.

Plus, I'm not sure there was a public comment option on 6C, and um, so I had some concerns about that piece, but we'll talk about that later too.

Thank you.

Okay, Stephen, you want to say something?

It's basically a bar ditch.

What we used to call a bar ditch.

Could you give me a few?

Sorry about that, sir.

It's a drainage, it's a drainage by the side of a road or a drainage ditch.

Thank you.

Or retention pond.

Yes.

So the the uh to answer some of Denny's questions, um, the city will be maintaining the channel.

Um, there is a funding mechanism through the overall subdivision uh special or specific planning area.

So yeah, that that'll be maintained in perpetuity by the the city and and paid for by the residents of uh this area.

Okay.

That's developed.

Any other public comment motion discussion?

I'll move to adopt resolution 2026 PCR 3 and recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of MPA 2026 0005 as presented.

I'll second.

Okay, motion by Commissioner Pazell, seconded by Commissioner Crohn.

Is there any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, proposed no.

Motion carries.

Discussion on possible action regarding a resolution approving the master plan amendment and recommended approval of the amendment to the Board of Supervisors to change the master plan designation for public quasi public to high density residential for a.42 acre parcel located 1405 drive, uh APN 010351-14.

Oh, Heather Ferris.

Yes, Heather Ferris for the record.

The subject parcel is located on the south side of Lapier Road, approximately 800 feet from its intersection with Fairview Drive.

The parcel is uh 0.42 acres in size, vacant, privately owned, and zoned multifamily apartment uh prior to the adoption of the 2025 master plan.

This parcel, as well as all of the parcels that are now designated as high density residential on this slide, uh, were designated as mixed use commercial on the master plan land use map.

Um, with the 2025 update, these parcels were all supposed to be redesignated as high density residential.

However, um the subject parcel was inadvertently designated as public quasi public, actually creating an inconsistency with the multifamily apartment um zoning.

The public quasi public uh designation is intended for properties that are owned by a governmental entity or properties that serve the public interest through civic educational essential services or some other means.

Uh, since this parcel is privately owned and has um zoning designation of multifamily apartment, the public quasi public designation is not appropriate.

Um and as I already noted, it was mistakenly applied.

It will align the property's land use designation with the fact that it's privately owned.

There are five findings of fact that the planning commission must make in the affirmative in order to recommend approval of the master plan amendment to the board of supervisors.

And with that, I'm available for questions.

I know he's been notified, but as you've talked to him, is he I actually had email correspondence with him.

Um and he seems to understand um what we're doing and doesn't have any issues.

Okay.

Commissioner Pazell.

Our Commission, I'm gonna crow what you get for being gone.

Uh my hand up, aren't you?

Uh did you have any communication with Mr.

Crow by chance?

I did.

Um I I talked to him on the phone and also provided him with an email um kind of uh giving him a little bit of a summary of what we talked about.

So Commissioner Pazell.

Yeah, um, correct me if I'm wrong, but um this is changing the master plan land use nation on the property itself.

The property itself is currently zoned to allow for for residential development.

That's correct.

The applicant came forward with uh an application to develop the property for a multifamily development, the city would be required to give it because under the current zoning, it allows for that, and the zoning regulates the uses.

This master plan is just a guiding document.

It doesn't have the force of a zoning ordinance.

That is correct.

But it would I think it would be hard to put a multifamily in a quarter of an acre.

You could probably do it.

It's I think I think Mr.

Brooks would, or Commissioner Brooks would call it a design, a design uh uh uh problem.

Yeah, challenge.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any other comments to staff?

Uh is there any public comment?

No problem.

Uh my name is Kevin Crow.

I'm the property owner 4041 LePyre Drive, the adjacent property.

Could you say that again so we could get it?

My name is Kevin Crow.

I live at 4041 LePyre Drive, which is property.

If you go back to the first picture with the drawing, that one there.

The property is contiguous right there with the open space.

It's part of the open space.

In fact, you see the trail going up to the top of Muffet Summit.

If you put a residential uh building there, uh you'll get a perfect view of that from the observation bench.

So it's in direct visual alignment for the uh if you look from the observation bench that's already there.

So that's my concern.

You have beautiful open space here.

Many people use that property.

Many people walk through there and enjoy that that whole open space.

And uh I'm concerned about it becoming high density residential.

It's a very small piece of property.

They'll put a multi-story building there, and it'll totally obstruct the observation bench from the summit there.

That that'd be my concern for that.

Thank you, by the way.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

I I guess my comment would be we don't we don't legislate uh views or what people do with private property.

I would probably suggest that if the homeowners out there want to keep that as open open space, they buy it.

So that would solve their problem.

Uh any other discussion.

Is there a motion?

Sure.

Um Commissioner Pazell.

Um I move to adopt resolution 2026 PCR uh-2 and recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of MPA 2026 0006 as presented.

Second.

Seconded by Commissioner De Christopher.

Is there any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed no.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Item 6E.

MPA 2026-006.

Discussion and possible action regarding a resolution approving a master plan amendment and recommending approval of the amendments of the Board of Supervisors to change the master plan designation from public quasi public.

I'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong one, aren't I?

Sorry.

MPA 2026-0007.

Okay, the feature of the night.

I took the easy one.

Okay.

Yeah.

Discussion and possible action regarding the resolution removing the master plan amendment and recommending approval of an amendment to the Board of Supervisors to change the master plan.

One text of policy DTMU 1.6 by removing reference to the state office complex expansion.

And two, text of the policy 6.3b by removing the state office complex from the downtown character area.

And three exhibit of the downtown character area map by removing the state office complex from this map.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And I think it's really important to understand that relationship.

And I don't want there to be a perception that because something's a polic in a policy, it doesn't feed into regulatory decisions, because that's that's simply not the case.

Therefore, they could build multifamily uh in that zoning despite the master plan.

That's a true statement.

And the reason it's a true statement is because the construction would be a ministerial permit versus a discretionary permit.

When you have discretionary permits, as you know, because discretionary permits are things like special use permits, you have findings of fact.

And in those findings of fact, you have cons a requirement to find consistency with the master plan.

So there are times when the zoning takes you back, if it's not ministerial, it's a discretionary permit, takes you back to your policy document for compliance.

So I didn't want I think that was a it it was uh sort of a statement to the effect of oh well you can do it despite the master plan.

And I just want to make it clear the master plan actually can be a pretty powerful player when you look at land development.

Um with that said, on December 16th, as I alluded to, the plan stay right there, the planning commission reviewed the master plan annual report.

Um during that meeting, the state provided late material requesting to have the state land removed from the downtown character area map and to remove the state office complex from the downtown mixed use policies.

The planning commission did not include the state's request in its recommendation to the board.

On January 6, 2026, the Board of Supervisors considered the master plan annual report.

During that meeting, I advised the Board of Supervisors what the recommendation of the planning commission was.

I also advised the Board of Supervisors that the state had made a request.

I explained what that request was, and I advised the Board of Supervisors that the planning commission did not include that request in the annual report.

And again, you can think of the annual report a little bit as a to-do list.

Um the board of supervisors had a discussion and they did decide to include the state's request in its resolution initiating a number of amendments to the master plan.

So again, the resolution of initiation is like filing an application.

The board of supervisors said no, we should go ahead and and have the the hearings on this and consider it.

Um as Heather mentioned, I can go through the substance, the substance again as we look at some policies that right in the downtown mixed use that references state office complex, and the request would be to remove the reference to the state office complex.

Um here again in another 6.3 talking about downtown character area.

There's a description of the state office complex.

So that would be removed.

And the area that is east of Stewart Street, south of Little Lane, would be removed from the downtown the downtown character map exhibit.

And on this, it's your you can see the outline.

It's usually light blue, but it's not coming up as light blue here.

And it would be, oh, maybe Heather got rid of that.

Good.

Wow, impressive.

Okay.

Heather, Heather did this PowerPoint, my first time seeing it, so thank you, Heather.

And so she shows that we would remove the reference to the state office complex, and we would remove the area outlined in red from the downtown character area map.

So that's the substance of the request.

So as Heather said in the last item, when you consider a master plan amendment, any master plan amendment, you have to look at five findings of fact.

And I've reviewed these five findings of fact in the staff report.

The first is you're looking for substantial compliance with the objectives, policies, and action programs of the master plan.

I have my master plan here, and I kept it open to the vision, and I thought that was really important because when we were doing the master plan, I think one of the last things we did was the vision.

And when we did the vision, the role of being a state capital was really important.

And I'm gonna read the vision.

The vision is Carson City is a community proud of its past and confident of its future.

We take pride in our role as a state capital and offer a balanced community with housing, employment, education, shopping, and recreation opportunities.

We value productive collaboration between the residents, businesses, partner organizations, neighboring municipalities, and state and federal agencies to engage in opportunities and challenges that affect our quality of life and the sense of community.

We also have throughout the plan comments about the retention and expansion of major employers.

And we talked a lot during the master plan about the state as an employer in our community.

So when I when I look at this request to be removed from the downtown area, which is essentially what the request is, I think the importance of being a state capital is still intact.

I think the importance of supporting large employers is still intact.

I don't think the removal from the downtown compromises that I saw there was a lot of public comment that did not agree with me on that point, and and that's okay.

But I wanted to expand that because I on that because I felt like the role of the state capital and the role of the state in Carson City was more than just the physical location.

And I think the continued presence of the state as an employer in our city and the partnership that we're striving to have is still we can make that finding.

Finding number two talks about land uses that are compatible with existing and adjacent land uses.

But you might get a wastewater treatment plant, you might get a prison.

You can get all these things that nobody really thinks about because the public sector does things the private sector doesn't do.

And you can have some pretty big impacts.

You can have a landfill, right?

And so of that, any land that's designated as public in is subject to or has a zoning designation public, is subject to a special use permit.

And that's why you just had the item on the landfill.

That's why a few meetings ago you saw a special use permit from the state, because we don't know what it will be, and we want to look at it for compatibility.

So when we look at the findings for the master plan change, and finding number two about compatibility, because this is public land, I know there will be a special use permit, and that will mandate the compatibility, which is why I'm making that finding.

Finding number three, I'm gonna save.

Finding number four talks about the proposed amendment is consistent with the desired pattern of growth for orderly physical development.

Um I can make that finding.

This is info.

It's not we're not looking to designate land for some high density on the fringes of the community outside the urban service boundary.

That would be an example where you were contrary to the desired pattern of growth.

And then lastly, does it violate the provisions of NRS or C CMC?

No, this proposed amendment will not violate the provisions of NRS or C CMC.

So now we get to finding three, and this is where I'm stuck.

Finding three says the proposed amendment identifies or addresses a change in condition that's occurred since the master plan was adopted by the board, or the amendment will provide a more desirable use of land.

The master plan was adopted on May 1st, 2025.

In preparing the master plan, we did have meetings.

Um Commissioner Preston was in the meeting with the administrative branch of the state government.

And Commissioner De Christopher was in the meeting with the legislative branch of the state government.

So we did reach out to the state, both the legislative branch and the administrative branch.

That said, we may hear something today.

We may hear something when you call on the public.

And and I recognize that may happen, and I wanted you to recognize that may happen.

But um that is where I am.

So if you after taking public comment, find you can make all five or all yeah, my numbers are wrong, sorry about that.

All five findings of fact.

I have prepared a res actually Heather did it for me, a resolution for you, where you can make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to amend the master plan as proposed.

Otherwise, I will advise the planning or the board of supervisors.

Again, you're making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

So if your recommendation is to not amend the master plan, I still go to the Board of Supervisors and I just carry that message forward.

Thank you.

Okay.

In the in the documentation that we were provided, it shows a phase one and a phase two.

Uh the phase one that's on here was not the phase one that we originally saw, because there are more buildings on it.

I believe.

I believe you're referring to late material that was submitted by the State Department of Public Works.

So I'm going to allow I I'm not going to interpret their exhibit for them.

I'll let them interpret their exhibit.

Okay.

Well, I think one of the things that we asked them to do is to provide us with their master plan.

And there's still nothing that we've seen that goes south of Little Street or Little Lane on the last section of this property that they're asking us to take out of the master plan.

And I I have a problem with that, you know.

Yeah.

From Little Lane South.

So Commissioner Barzel.

Yeah, I hope I'm thank you for um clarifying what I stated in in the previous application.

You're absolutely correct.

Um and I appreciate that.

Um my concern as one of the planning commissioners is I haven't heard or seen anything that states why the state feels they should be removed and why they don't want to participate or be in compliance with those those policies as part of the master plan.

Um before when they submitted the late material and and now.

So I mean that that's my concern, and hopefully, like you say, maybe they'll present something tonight that provides that clarification and uh is a good and clear reason as to why they should um these amendments should be forwarded.

Commissioner DeChristopher.

Thank you, Chair.

Um yeah, I think what came to mind for me going back through these findings, is in addition to what Commissioner Faisel is saying.

We don't know the outcome of the meetings that were going to take place between our city manager, Glenn Martell, and I believe you, Mr.

Lewis, and perhaps others from the governor's office or your architectural team, and I know if I understood it correctly, it was to address public safety concerns or safety for the employees.

Both, um, which I completely understand, some of which can be uh spoken to and addressed this evening.

Uh but that would that will be helpful information.

Uh but absence that I feel like we're still waiting for a reason to understand why we can't work collaboratively on the things that we brought up, which I know they had varying degrees, little ask, big ask, but um I think we should be able to work together.

Uh we've been able to collaborate with others that are working on master plans, and that's one of the beauties of being in the state capitol, and to hope's point, we reached out early on, and we'd like to be able similar to towns that are university towns, you have that town and gown relationship.

I continue to hope that we can have that relationship with the state government.

Commissioner Preston.

There's one thing that I'm kind of lost on.

I remember seeing something in the last little bit, it's been kind of a blur, but it actually had some green spaces with some little red X's.

Do we have anything like that in our reports?

Because that was a drawing that we were given that said how this was supposed to be to look with the interior um the interior areas, but it was kind of it was very rudimentary.

It was green and red and just had the area, but it showed like the interior grass plazas, and it had some other things because I'm not seeing it in this packet at all.

And I remember seeing this somewhere in the last week or so, and um it's not here, but at the same time, it's what I saw that I looked at it.

I thought that's kind of strange that didn't to seem like a really professional depiction of what the capital be looking at.

So that was my first question.

Is did I see that or is crazy?

It's entirely possible that you saw something like that as associated with the special use permit application that the applicant may have submitted.

What I'm working on is the master plan amendments, and I asked the applicant for information to support the request for the master plan amendment, and I provided to you what was provided to the staff.

Um the applicant can certainly discuss the exhibit you're talking about if that's something they're familiar with, if they feel like that helps address the findings.

Well, what this is not a discussion again of the master plan submission that they gave us.

We're discussing the master plan, not the special use.

Their special use permit that they have to do that.

You're correct.

We are not looking at the special use permit right now.

We are simply just like you had three different sp master plan amendments, right?

That you just reviewed without considering development of that land, that's what you're doing now.

Commissioner Crohn.

One of the other concerns I've had is um we've heard a lot, and also the public comments that were received that we received in writing, talk a lot about the the character of the town being a small town and a small character.

What I'm concerned about is that if this area is removed, and if you look, can you go back to the to the overall plan where it chose phase one and phase two, please for me?

Oh, you don't have that electronically.

Okay.

Um there's if you look at it, there's a fairly significant percentage of the area identified in the downtown.

So it's a fairly large area we're talking about.

And I think it's important from a collaborative perspective to realize that there are people in this town who were involved in the master plan process that really want to, as well as the commission, felt that it was important to move forward with the idea of keeping Carson City a small town, that small town character, that small town feel.

And I'm just concerned that if that if these areas are removed from that, what if you will, what would then propose the state to help us collaborate with that?

So I I see this as a way to help uh to help everybody kind of come together by keeping it in the downtown plan by everybody coming together and working together to help create that that downtown small town character feel.

Um otherwise I don't know what we're gonna get.

And maybe that can happen through the special use permit process.

I'm not quite convinced that it can if this is removed from the downtown character area map in the poly in the reference to the state um office complexes removed from the policies relative to the downtown character areas, it would not be appropriate to apply those policies to this area.

Well so then hope excuse me, let me so then so then following up then is if a project did come forward, we would see it similar to what we saw uh the last like what started this whole thing back in uh November when they came forward with one specific project.

So would that be as as the project move forward, will we be other seeing bits and pieces of special use permits if if it's not kept within the downtown character aspect of things.

I I think I got lost a tiny bit, but um let me try.

Sorry.

Let me try.

Um in the downtown.

Okay.

The master plan paid a lot of attention to the downtown.

Yes.

And the 2006 master plan paid a lot of attention to the downtown.

It wasn't just the 2025 master plan.

We we we kept that.

And because of the importance of the downtown and Carson City, there are a number of policies related to development in the downtown.

And I'll pick on um the bank saloon.

Bank saloon uh there's a parcel behind the bank saloon, it's its own parcel, it's not the old Jack Spar parcel, and the bank saloon wanted to build a parking lot there.

I don't remember what was there before the parking lot.

Might have just been dirt.

And so when Aaron West at that time came forward and said we want to build a parking lot, what we had to do was look at what are the standards in the downtown.

And they have a decorative fence along the um was that is a fourth, I don't remember what street that is.

Right.

But it's a decorative fence along the parking lot because there were certain standards you had to do.

So in the downtown, there are certain standards.

There's it talks about the pedestrian orientation, so on so forth.

If you have a piece of land, any piece of land that happens to be subject to the downtown policies, what you do as part of your review, and again, if it's discretionary, you're looking at your master plan, is you're applying those policies.

Um if you have a piece of land that is not within the downtown, say it's out on Highway 50 or it's um North Carson Street, though you wouldn't even consider those standards because it's not in the downtown.

So what the um state folks have asked for is they said please remove us from the downtown.

We don't want to be subject to those design standards associated with the downtown.

So would we still do a review for the special use permit?

Yes, we would.

But just like if the property was on North Carson, the idea of the downtown policies would not even be discussed because they wouldn't be applicable.

So I hope that answers.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm sorry, I wasn't as clear, but no, they did a very nice job.

Thank you.

Commissioner Preston.

Okay.

The when we talk about the state office complex itself.

Are we including legislative branch, the uh judicial branch and the administrative branch, executive branch, right?

We're looking at it as a whole instead of the three different branches, correct?

Um I'm about to double check, but my recollection is there's nowhere in the master plan where we distinguish one branch of the state government from a different branch of the state government.

I think the thing that's kind of thrown me off is a couple of meet months ago, the legislative branch of the state government came in here, asked for a special use permit, so that they looked at the master plan.

They agreed to everything, and we were out of here in 45 minutes.

So I mean, that's what I'm kind of lost on when we're looking at the state as a whole, because I've actually had people come to me and say, what's your problem with the state?

We have no problem with the state.

The the one group said this is it.

We looked at the master plan and we went forward and it was easy, and I think we gave compliments on the buildings and what they were doing, and they have a parking garage and everything that has these same elements except for the design was not as we had requested.

So that's I think where I'm uh I want to make sure that it's not differentiated between the three parts of government.

I can answer that question now.

And no, the um references in the master plan do not differentiate the legislative branch from the administrative branch from the judicial branch.

And my concern hope is is in this last section down here.

If we if we go ahead and take if we go ahead and recommend to do this, everything from Little Lane South, which is part of their state office complex, which goes down what past the DMV.

Um we've we've we've abdicated any kind of anything on that land, it would seem to me.

All right any public comment Sandra Owens so um as a resident and uh business owner and also someone who actually participated in the master plan process in attending the meetings um I wanted to speak to this because it's like I was really excited to see those houses go down it's been such an eyesore there but then hearing this it was just I genuinely can't understand why as a city we would spend two hours of public of our time I mean sorry two years of our time public input professional planning work taxpayer money to create a master plan with a clear vision of the downtown area only to begin carving out exemptions within the first six months of adopting it especially for one of the largest projects proposed to the downtown core area so the master plan wasn't just aspirational wall wallpaper it was meant to be applied equally to all applicants all developers all entities if the plan can be amended simply by because a project doesn't align with it then the plan just loses its meaning and all the work and the money that we put into it the state has said it wants to collaborate and that it respects the master plan but collaboration requires give and take what we have before us tonight is not a design revision or a compromise it's a request to be removed from the downtown mixed use policy entirely which has it takes away our power so with no public rationale provided and no design changes offered to respond to the concerns that you guys raised in November and December that matters the state um was not an afterthought during the master plan process it was a primary agency partner from the beginning nothing about the state's roles needs or status has changed since the plan was adopted in May of 2025 so if we grant this exemption now what precedence are we setting moving forward for other developers and other parts of downtown because you know realistically downtown does belong to to everyone here the residents made it very clear during all of those meetings the master plan revision process that Carson City's charm and character and historical identity really mattered and you know the people choose to live here because they love Carson City they're not looking for that big city feel so if the master plan is tested I think it should be tested by being applied not by being a minute away and we should you know maybe use the other processes to accommodate their needs but we really shouldn't um compromise all the work that we've put into it you know and what the community had the input and the that the community has put into this plan.

Okay thank you now another person made it very easy for me but the commissioners as you've are sitting and listening and the input suggests that this is not anything that we can project ahead because we don't even have a set idea what they're considering we know they need a parking garage or they need this or this but the design and the character I'd like to refer back to Kathleen uh basley's uh statement she's lived here just a short time she doesn't want it to just be uh Reno or Las Vegas or such and the character of this community is very important to her is to me I'm not a native I didn't come here to be in Las Vegas or I would be there or if I wanted to be in Reno after my parents passed I would be there this area is very important I don't want to give that up there already set into this until more information and consideration they can put in a special whatever after but don't change it it's set where it is they can work around it if they can't then I'm worried about them and that consideration that collaborative is missing.

Thank you very much.

Danny, you have signed in, right?

Push the button until it turns green.

Sorry.

No, you don't have to hold it.

Just make it there.

You go.

Start again.

Okay.

Paula Peters, Carson City resident.

And I had a few things to say, but it's pretty much been covered.

But I guess my personal input is our downtown is very special.

When people come to visit me, they want to go to Tahoe, they want to go to General, and I take them downtown, and they're amazed.

It's beautiful.

And if we start having all these institutional government buildings pop up, it's gonna change the character.

And I just think it'd be a real mistake to lose the downtown because that is what Carson City has.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Nope.

Three minutes.

Three minutes.

Talk fast.

Good evening.

I'm Administrator Will Lewis with State Public Works Division.

I witness I have with me Deputy Administrator Brian Walker.

I'm gonna try to say this real quickly and succinctly so that you can understand the vision of what the package that we put in front of you guys so that you can make a decision.

You got a decision.

One is a resolution and the other one is the master plan.

We're not talking about the master plan.

We're not talking about the project, we're talking about the resolution.

That's what you have before you.

But I want to talk a little bit about the master plan because there have been so many questions and so many issues raised.

Uh has the approval of the state registration register's office, the legislature, the state public works board, along with state agencies that will be directly impacted by these buildings that we're proposing.

So thank you for the opportunity to present.

I want to talk a little bit about connectivity.

And what I'm what I'm gonna highlight, I want to show the commissioners that we have been paying attention and that we are trying our very best to check as many boxes of your character map as possible.

Connectivity.

A direct connection of this to the city hall is another feature.

You're gonna see there's a there's a green area that we have a diagonal part uh pedestrian walkway that connects directly to City Hall to show the connectivity between our development and what the city is proposing.

I'm going quickly.

I had so many more things I wanted to say.

Next, we also we we're all about the small town field.

Our master plan, we plan on implementing landscape features that promote human interaction.

We're using local and indigenous plants that along with a combination of both desertscape and artificial turf that will conserve water as well as have a lessening financial impact on the state as well as the city.

We also in our master plan we're looking at incorporating walk paths, bicycle routes, public bus routes, as well as accessible curbs for people with disabilities, so that everyone can take advantage of this mall type area.

We're also proposing vehicular charging stations for staff as well as possible for public use in the future.

And then when you talk about our public, I know a lot of people had a negative attitude about parking.

Well, our parking garage throughout that master plan, we're locating it in key locations to minimize surface parking and support a pedestrian oriented campus core.

We also talk uh in our master plan, we're trying to incorporate um respect for the existing infrastructure.

We have certain buildings like the Bryan building that you're guys are talking about further to the south.

That building is is already in place.

We want to enhance that design.

So I'm sorry we didn't include it in the master plan, but that is part of our master plan.

That's our property in the fire station as well as the government technology building.

All of those, we want those services to continue without disruption because it's critical to us as a state.

And then we have some historical buildings, uh the gymnasium, um, the armory building, uh, those buildings we're gonna continue to keep and work with SHIPO so that we can keep the the vernacular and the character of downtown cost.

And our main thrust, and I'm gonna say this all for the record, is we want to be able to make Carson or add to Carson City as a unique destination with its unique uh landmarks, and we want to work with the uh the existing vernacular downtown.

So our our master plan is to again enhance, certainly not to disrupt.

And then finally, in my last thoughts, I just want to give me a minute.

Hurry up.

Oh, yeah, I know I know in my last thought.

I just want to say that the state of the mat is one of the biggest employers in the state of in the city of Carson.

We know that.

And we're talking about bringing more jobs that's gonna economically impact Carson.

Those jobs are gonna create opportunities for businesses as well as residents to be able to take advantage of that.

And in the meantime, when you look at our overall master plan, we're going, we want to continue to partner with the city.

So again, this is I'm I'm condensing it, guys.

There's so many more things I wanted to say about that master plan that's in front of you, but I'm gonna turn it over to Brian to talk a little bit about his thoughts.

Three minutes.

All right, thank you.

Well, good evening, Commissioners.

Uh, I'm Brian Walker, deputy administrator for the State Public Works Division.

So I'd like to take my time to talk a little bit about our process and how we arrived at today's discussion.

So state of Nevada periodically updates its Capital Complex Master Plan.

The most recent update was in 2022.

The plan focused on future office space needs in Carson City, and that plan showed that the state currently leases over 700,000 square feet in Carson City.

So a key recommendation from that plan was to transition employees into state-owned space where possible.

Um I'd like to also talk and say, you know, the 2022 master plan follows decades of state planning that has the same vision.

We've envisioned state office buildings surrounding a central mall.

Um, this master plan in 2022, we previously sent uh to Carson City staff and also uh your consultant as your master plan was being developed.

Um, as a result of the master plan, the department of administration moved on this and by requesting a state capital improvement program or CIP request in spring 2022.

That request followed a lengthy process that included recommendations by the State Public Works Board and the Governor in fall 2023 and was funded by the 2023 legislature through assembly bill one in summer 2023.

So we go through this public process and every project approved in the state capital improvement program.

This design started, stopped, and was changed by the state interim finance committee in September 2024, and we started designing the currently proposed buildings and parking garage in spring 2025 that you've seen.

So the reason I'm saying that is it's important to note that the city's master plan was adopted in May 2025.

We learned in December 2025 that the city intends to amend the master plan text to show how the term jurisdiction is handled.

In response, we requested to be removed from the downtown character map.

We believe that is the change of condition required by finding three.

So removing the capital complex from the downtown character map provides flexibility for the state to develop this area as outlined in the state master plan.

I'd like to remind the commission that the Carson City Master Plan Section 6.3D recognizes and encourages support of the state's master plan.

Um removing the Capitol Complex from Carson City's master plan acknowledges the state's unique role as a separate public body with its own authority-having jurisdiction or AHJ in contrast to other private property owners and developers.

So having said that, it's our intent to work collaboratively with Carson City on current this project, future projects to ensure compatibility with Carson City.

This request is not an attempt to be removed from the due public process.

So I'm out of time.

So as we covered a lot quickly, I thank you for your time, and we're ready for your questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any other public comment?

You already had yours.

No, it's public comment.

Um Mr.

Chair, I I hear what Denny's Mr.

French is saying, and I understand what you're saying.

I think we continue with this item, and you and Mahela can touch base after the meeting if that's okay.

I right.

Well, I I understood what you were saying, so I'll let you and Mahela um speak after the meeting, or I can speak to you, but I think the commission, unless there's more public comment, can continue discussing this item.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um thank you for coming.

And I the things that you you have said from from my standpoint are things that we've all agreed to beforehand.

This thing all started with the fact that we were trying to get your design to fit our our square hole, and your triangular peg didn't fit.

And it it just seems like instead of sitting down and trying to figure a way to make a round hole work, uh all we got was you know let's move it up, move it up, and pretty soon we'll just take it away.

And I don't think that's very collaborative.

If you look at the two, if you look at the two um phases that you've got in here, phase two, which is existing, is pretty much what we wanted phase one to look like.

But you all flipped the script when we first started this about how the parking lots were arranged and where things were, and all we wanted to do was to see if there was some continuity that we could find to make that work.

And we didn't get it.

The planning commission didn't get it.

Somebody may have gotten it, but we didn't get it.

And I think that's where the frustration is.

Uh Commissioner Peterson.

This question is for uh Hope and staff.

Um, if if we move on staff's recommendation for denial, and it goes goes to the board of supervisors, can they override us and still allow these guys to uh um exit out of the master plan?

The short answer is yes, the decision rests with the board of supervisors.

You're recommending body, and the board of supervisors is authorized to amend the master plan.

There's a little bit of due process there, but I won't I won't get bogged down in that.

Um I want to say something about the first thing you said, and you said if we follow staff's recommendation for denial, um you have and I say this occasionally, I haven't said it lately, I don't think.

Um I've said this for probably 30 years.

The staff has a set of facts, and when we put forward our staff report, we're giving you our staff report based on the facts as we understand them and as we anticipate them.

The planning commission gets a bigger set of facts because you get the benefit of public comment.

Those letters that you had in late material, the staff report was out when those letters came in.

Um the public comment you received tonight, both pro and con, staff didn't have the benefit of that public comment.

So you have a larger data set than the staff gets.

Staff makes its recommendation based on a limited data set.

So I think what would be best is based on the public comment that you read and that you heard that you look at the findings of fact and you independently determine if you've heard anything that can help you make the findings, and if you if you haven't, the answer is no.

But if the answer is yes, the answer is yes.

But I think I think that's the discussion at this point.

Thank you.

I a couple other topics really quickly.

So if we do deny, and the board of supervisors deny as well, are there concessions or some middle ground that we can find with the state that they give us a couple of elements that make it a little more acceptable to visually being pleasing with our downtown.

Yeah, I mean it uh I understand that their plans are already pretty much.

We're not we're not at the SUP stage now.

Right.

I'll go back to what I provide the information I provided to Mr.

Kron.

Um when you consider a special department, you're looking at master plan consistency, and when you look at master plan consistency, you look at those policies of the master plan that would should be incorporated into a design or into a use.

So if it so that'll leave it there, Commissioner Bazell.

Thank you.

I I still go back to my my previous statement.

I I still don't understand what their conflict is with the policies within the downtown um within the the city's master plan as adopted in in December of 2025.

It it would be lovely to know why what the conflicts are from the state's point of view.

Um but at this point I don't know what those conflicts are.

Commissioner De Christopher.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh yeah, I guess that's what I still struggle with.

I very much appreciate um the timeline that Mr.

Walker provided that did provide some context to it.

But I think one of the things I'm hoping that they'll understand is everything that you said definitely makes me feel more comfortable as a planning commissioner saying, yeah, yeah, right.

And understood all the other benefits.

But it's the thing of okay, then why can't it be articulated?

Why not?

If we're so compatible, I still don't hear the answer as to why you have to exit from the city master plan.

And you know, perhaps this is the easiest way to explain it.

It reminds me of relationships, right?

We've got the city and the state, and we're in a relationship, but the state won't give the city a ring.

It's symbolic, and we want to know why, but we can't break up with you.

That would do no no one any good, right?

So we're asking for the ring.

I I don't know.

Commissioner Preston.

There are a couple of things that I found kind of interesting, and I think these are going to be the points that after sitting in all of the meetings, including sitting with the executive branch, sitting in that meeting, sitting in all of the meetings during the listening tour, the times that we sat with the board of supervisors and so forth.

One thing that keeps coming up to me, especially considering I'm on deck next door, and today I had a meeting with the directors of the uh chamber of commerce, and there seems to be a lot of misconception.

And I think something that's really important is what we have seen is you alluded to the Carson City's city hall plan.

We are yet to see it.

It's a barrel of air.

We have it has not been presented here.

We're glad you know about it more than we do.

The this right here, you've presented to whoever it is with the city plan to work with, but again, it has not been presented as a plan, it has not been brought forward.

So essentially, and we used to talk about this in business all the time.

Talk is cheap, and basically we have a barrel of air.

That's it.

And to try to go ahead and say, okay, this is what we want, this is what we're gonna do, and therefore we're gonna pick up our toys and go home, and we don't want to be a part of your plan, but yeah, we are.

That's I'm with I'm with uh Commissioner De Christopher, put a ring on it or don't.

I don't know.

I don't I'm lost.

I'm really lost.

Is are we going to be collaborative here?

We reached out to you when it came down to the master plan, and we actually met with you, sir.

Um Mr.

Rob Yeah, we met with you, Charlie Donahue.

We met with you know, state lands, said what do you want to do?

Do you have any plans?

You're talking about, oh, this happened in 2022.

We were in those meetings.

Had there been a change, it would have been nice to have a call to say, hey, let's revisit this.

But there wasn't.

And we made it very clear to the state that yeah, this is something that we wanted to be collaborative on, that this was all part of it.

And these guys didn't say we want to do something different.

They said, hey, we want to go ahead and work with you.

So I don't know.

I think that if we were dating my mom would say, I think this is not the person for you.

So I don't know.

Um we we have heard the people here, we've put so much into it.

We've looked at so many different municipalities, and so and I found my thing with the little X's on it that I was looking for.

And the little X's are the same thing that's a little bit more elaborate than what you said last time, but it's certainly not clear here as to where the parking lots are.

You've made it so small.

Before the picture that we had a couple of months ago showed the parking was all in front of the buildings, these were the things we had concern of.

You've given us this right here, as far as the complex, and you've outlined this, you've eliminated from Lil Little Lane South.

This is not a proposal.

I mean, as far as I'm concerned.

So thank you for your time.

Mr.

Peterson.

Well, I kind of I get a kick out of the uh relationship analogies, you know, and I think I think we have trust issues.

Since we're putting rings on things and you know, dump the guy or dump her, or you know, can we cohabitate or not?

So I think now it's trust issues.

I mean, if we you trust us, and you allow us to go forward with your these stipulations and these things for our downtown core and the ideas that we have, and and we trust you so that you guys say, okay, we'll play play in your sandbox.

We're not going to do anything ridiculous if we do get the hall pass, like um higher storied uh like taller buildings than what we would like to see, that kind of thing.

There again, that's where we end up with the trust issue.

You guys trust us, we trust you.

You know, um stay within our boundaries.

We you know, we look at what you have, and um we collaborate, we kick it around, you know, we get somewhere.

You know, right now we're at a dead end.

Um we don't know you know if we're gonna drop you off on the side of the road and tell you to catch cab or not.

So I mean it's kind of uh that's just my um look at that.

Um we have a little we have more room to go before uh we get our room together.

Thank you.

I'm not gonna take that analogy any farther.

Um I would like to say before we think about voting on this.

Um I have been a member of a planning commission, a board of supervisors, a mayor pro tem for over 25 years in different locales and in different municipalities.

The one tenet that we always had to put together was the fact that the planning commissions follow the rules, and the board of supervisors get to play God or make changes as to how they feel.

And I think we have asked and asked and asked for information so that we can find a way to play by the rules, and I don't think we've gotten that.

So I uh I know that the board of supervisors can do the things they need to do.

They think they need to do, whether it's smart or not, that's their decision.

And I'm I don't have to get re-elected.

Uh but um I don't think we could have solved this three months ago if we'd sat down and took out a plot map and started moving things around a little bit to see if we could find some common ground.

You'd have had your special use permit already approved, and you could be moving dirt, and now we're looking at another cycle to go through.

Uh and I I know I know you've your your funds have been appropriated and they've been obligated, so you have to spend them.

If you don't spend them here, you're probably gonna have to go back and find someplace else that that will let you spend them in the time frame you have, and you may not or may not be able to do that, but that's not my problem.

Uh my problem is trying to find a way to make what you want to do, and all the nice words that you said, and I appreciate every one of them.

That's exactly what we want.

But we want it to be done in the way that this master plan has been designed as best we can.

And I think just cutting out a large section of it is the wrong thing because the next thing that happens is our project that we don't know about called City Hall is going to come in and say, Well, cut me out too, because I'm gonna be a government entity.

And then all of a sudden our downtown the area is only a half a block, and that's not what the citizens of some Carson City wanted, and that's not what I think we want.

And so uh I've I personally can't I I I have to vote no on this.

I have to adopt our resolution and take the staff's recommendations.

So there are any other questions or comments anybody wants to make Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Yeah.

Um I'm not gonna read the vision again, but I want to emphasize again.

We are and I heard everything you said.

The state had an opportunity to speak with the clock running.

Um Commissioner Pizell asked the question.

He said, I don't understand why it they can't be in the state.

And taking notes as Mr.

Lewis spoke, Mr.

Lewis Sorv was on the offensive, I'll say, in terms of saying we're going to do this and we're going to do this, and we're going to do this, and we're going to do this.

And he went on and I wrote as fast as I could.

I think with the clock running, he was he didn't really have the opportunity to say, and let me take a minute and explain to you why downtown doesn't work for this, why there's a change of condition, why this is a more desirable use of land.

And for Mr.

Walker, he focused on the timeline as opposed to responding to the findings of fact and explaining substantively why being in the downtown area would not work.

So I I'm going, I think, given that the state is it's a big landowner and they're important to us.

That's in the master plan.

We talked about that.

I think we owe it to them to ask the question and give them an opportunity to answer the question without the clock running.

You would do that for other other members of the public.

And I would suggest you do that before you vote.

Okay.

Mr.

Pazell.

Yes.

Um my question to the applicant is going to be um, are you willing to continue this item um to the next meeting in order to provide yourself some time that you can address the the issues with finding number three and provide us with some information as to why you feel this entire property should be removed from the the um the downtown uh corridor and uh removed from the um master plan.

Um I would appreciate that information greatly when I make my consideration of what how I'm gonna vote.

What is there any uh appetite to hear more from the state?

All right.

Well, I I to just be clear um the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution that initiated this.

I am suggesting that you ask a member of the public and it happens to be representatives from the state, a question, and give them an opportunity to answer without a time clock going, because I feel like it's a piece of information that you need, and I'm not sure that you've heard it, and they may or may not choose to answer, but I just want to be clear, they're not an applicant, but I think you would have extended this courtesy to another member of the public if you had a question.

Okay.

Well, uh question for hope.

Um based on the the timeline, um can they can they have a continuance or does the clock run out on the resolution?

Um I'll have to look at that, but I haven't heard the chair invite them to speak on these items.

Thank you.

So I'd rather wait and see what's happening there, and then um I'll figure it out.

Thank you.

Can would you like to speak on item three?

Administrator Will Lewis for the record, we're not prepared to talk towards any questions you may have, but again, we would be glad to feel those questions and then give a response back to the commission.

Well, I guess I guess the question is you our our sticking point is item number three, because we we can't see a change in condition.

Can you can you illuminate us on the change in condition?

So it seems again administrative will lose for the record.

It seemed to be the one hiccup that we have is parking and the parking lot location.

Am I correct in saying that?

Uh generally what that was where we started.

Okay.

Okay.

So if you if you're asking when we looked at parking and creating a safe environment that could be quickly assessed and could brought under control by law enforcement and by emergency staff, the the scenario of landscaping, parking, landscaping building scenario worked well for us.

That model works very efficiently for us.

Everything else in that character map that was brought out, we feel we can accomplish.

And through the special use permit, we would provide that data to show that we can meet those criteria.

So if can I ask your question then?

Yes, sir.

It's not the parking garages.

No.

It's the it's this it's the location of the building versus the street parking.

Correct.

Okay.

Commissioner Preston.

Okay.

I'm going to bring it back to the resolution.

Because this is what we're looking at the resolution, and we're looking at we're looking at five findings of fact.

And what the five findings of fact were outlined in this, and did you get a chance to review that?

Because the finding of fact that we're having difficulty with is this.

The proposed amendment identifies addresses and change in conditions that have occurred since the master plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

And the amendment will represent more desirable use of land.

This is where I'm where I'm stuck.

And if you hopefully you can help me, you started this process in 2022.

I mean, in in yeah, yeah, 2022.

It's what you indicated when you did the timeline.

And then you went into the legislature in 2024.

And then they approved the CPI in 2025, correct?

Okay.

And in May of 2025, we adopted this.

We were working on this.

And so this was a public document that was available to everybody, including the state, including the legislature, everybody.

And what we're asking is your plan right now is your plan.

We you know, I mean, at this point, I can't even look at your little X's and stuff because that's not what we're looking at.

We're looking at the resolution.

Can you tell us specifically what has changed between that makes yours different that you want to be taken out of the equation from uh May 1st, 2025?

What changed?

Yeah, Brian Walker for the record.

I I tried to well, excuse me, I tried to go through it in my three minutes, but I think I was going really fast.

And so the change to us, and I know this is up for interpretation, you guys will take it as you will.

Um, for us, when we first read that master plan, the the language and the text in there that says that the state's capital complex is outside of the jurisdiction of Carson City.

When we saw that, we read that, and then we you know took that as the direction that we're outside of the jurisdiction.

So we always understood that we had to come to you for a special use permit as part of that due process that's part of the city ordinance um as we're developing our project.

As we went through that process, we first came and talked to you in November, and it was you know clear that the downtown mixed use, you know, uh was being applied to our project.

Um we we stayed the vote at that meeting, we came back in December.

Well, it was what happened at that meeting.

We also learned, or right as that meeting was happening, we learned that um Carson City intended to change the wording of the master plan to really I guess clarify for your terms, you know, how the how the you know jurisdiction is handled by striking text.

And so that to us changes how the master plan you know impacts the state, and that it puts us firmly back into this jurisdiction.

For us, that's the change in condition because as you're changing that text, we realize you're changing that text, and that that changed for us, which is why we asked for our amendment to uh be removed from the downtown mixed use as you've changed that term of your jurisdiction over us.

Okay, because one thing is just is that I'm confused because we've we've always had jurisdiction over you guys.

Um last time that we did one was at for the museum for the adventure center, which was recently, and that's true Department of Tourism, and they had to come up before this board and make sure that everything was coesthetic at that time, and it was after the master plan had been adopted.

We so we had that one.

Um again, we had the legislature.

I know you guys wear different hats, but they were here and they saw it and they adhered to everything in there, and they didn't ask to be removed.

And I think one of the things that came out in the master plan, so please keep this in mind too, is we we value you as an employer.

We value being the state capital.

However, state of Nevada doesn't pay land taxes, and you're our biggest land user.

So this is something so you're not really putting into our roads, except for if your people pay gas, you know, we're not actually getting the revenue sources.

So when we're looking at this thing, now you know, not only do you not want to pay taxes on the land, not you want to keep this big piece of land, you want to tell us what you want to do with it.

And so I think that's kind of disconcerting.

So um there has been you guys have been under jurisdiction all the way along, all the way along.

And and any time anything comes up for the state on a state property, it it comes up for the special use permit.

And the and it always says, have you read the master plan?

Are you uh you know, have you done that?

And that's one of the things in the special use permit that's in there.

And so when you guys first came in a couple of months ago, the question was is, and I think every one of us on this board said, Did you read the master plan?

Because this doesn't look like the master plan, and you all said, uh-huh.

So I think that's what's kind of thrown thrown it off.

But can you explain to us what the change has been from May 1st, 2025 to now?

The change is we didn't approve the SUP.

That's the only change.

That's the only change, but there was no change in the master plan.

No, no.

So I'm saying if we'd approved the SUP, we wouldn't have been here.

No.

And if we could have, if we could have worked out the SUP, we wouldn't be here.

So it it's almost like, you know, I don't like this ball, I'm gonna take it home and bring another one.

Uh Commissioner DeChristopher.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, just looking at this a different way.

I heard what Mr.

Excuse me, Lewis.

Yes, so sorry.

Um, I heard what you said about the parking.

So I'm going back to the master plan.

Just a thought.

There is a sentence or two regarding the thing that is the flying ointment, the parking.

That will also be addressed in SUP, correct?

Miss Sullivan.

That sorry, if it's it it goes back to my answer to Mr.

Cron.

If this was a project at North Carson Street and it wasn't subject to the downtown standards and the policies associated with the downtown, we would not be looking at those policies.

So I my understanding, and and before I answer your question, I just want to um kind of underscore what Brian Walker just said, because in fairness, he what he said is is a correct statement to a certain extent.

What the code says on page 58 on the Capitol Complex, it says the Capitol Complex is a defining feature of the down of downtown Carson City.

While it is not under the city's jurisdiction, the Capitol Complex serves as a draw for visitors and residents and so on and so forth.

And you'll recall um in the board actually included this in this resolution, that that actually is a misleading statement because we do have zoning jurisdiction under NRS.

And so the proposed wording will correct that to clarify that we have zoning jurisdiction.

So the word while not under the city's jurisdiction is misleading.

And um the board has agreed to initi has initiated that amendment.

So I think that's what he was alluding to.

So I appreciate what you said, but in fairness, that it speaks specifically to the Capitol Complex.

Um back to your question.

If we're looking at a project that is not in the downtown, we would not apply the downtown policies to that project.

Correct.

And where I was going with that, if the parking is the concern.

If we remove the sentence that refers to parking and address it at the point that we get the SUP in front of us.

But again, we were under the impression that by taking us out of the out of the master plan as far as I mean the downtown, that that would give us an opportunity to do that.

And I know she she said that time and time again.

So I'm I'm being repetitive.

And I will agree with Mr.

Lewis because you used the word town gown, which surprised me, because I used that same term in a meeting with them.

And you and I have not spoken about that.

So that was interesting.

But in me, the first time I met with Mr.

Lewis, he explained this would be like a campus.

A campus is sort of in my mind a more isolated place, whereas something that's part of the downtown is more integrated to the community.

So I see them as competing design objectives.

That said, if Mr.

Lewis has numerous times in my presence, talks about the landscape features that he's proposing, and we haven't seen that level of detail.

And so is there an opportunity to enhance or maybe get better definition on the proposed design and keep it in the downtown?

Potentially.

Any other questions any other questions?

Okay.

Now what they cannot agree to continue this because they are not the applicant.

Yep.

Um so I I can bring this to you in February, but I'd like to give them the courtesy of of checking with them if I can have two minutes.

All right, why don't we take a five-minute recess then?

We're gonna send out for pizza.

Do you want to go?

Do you want to have the water?

Is that the same thing?

Um for the record, Mr.

Chair and uh Glenn Martell City Manager as the applicant, um, separate aside from the public comment, I know has to be addressed, but at this time we would just like to ask that the commission take a vote.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh okay.

Uh because we had more testimony, we'll see if there's any other public comment at this time.

And um Mr.

Chair, yes, I am in all fairness, you know, we have the three minute limitation, and today was one of those days when um you you offered the opportunity of uh unlimited public comment in time that the same opportunity be given to the other members of the public that would like to move to make the comments.

Okay.

Yes, you did.

Denny French Carson City.

And I appreciate every comment that you all have made, which leaves me in a position where I don't know any more information than you do, even less.

And I'm thinking if they're not going to do anything totally outrageous, why wouldn't they want to stay in it as it's stated and then work on the special use permits, decide if you want the parking lots in front of or in a courtyard or something on that line, whether or not you want to have them put artificial turf you already decided you didn't want, so that was one thing I was pretty clear on.

So I would just really appreciate that these gentlemen have made their statements and and I appreciated what they said, but they don't seem to be addressing why they need to pull out of what is how it's written.

And that is like you're saying, well, what's the problem?

You know, we have a relationship going, but there's no you're asking for information that you haven't gotten.

You're asking for clarification that you're not getting, and you can imagine where I am.

I'm here, I'm embarrassed for even coming.

I've been trying not to involve myself as much, but I am involved, and I want due process, and we talked about that.

I had missed one of the aspects of it, so I will not call uh special uh concern towards uh a disruption of meeting etiquette or the rules of meeting, public meeting.

So that's not a problem.

But I do find it very hard to understand why the state, which people appreciate.

Um Preston uh uh planning commissioner Preston mentioned, you know that there are benefits from having them, but then we have the misfall of the traffic that doesn't pay into our roads, it doesn't have taxes and different things like that.

So there's a push-shove.

But it's clear that you all want to work together.

I just don't know why they're fumbling over being able to have it as it's written, work with the special permits and where things are gonna go differently.

Agree on your part and then put it to the supervisors, and as you said, they're in a position that you're not.

But at this point, I'm very frustrated with the circumstances of the order and things being brought up about the city center and the and the city hall, things that I'm going.

That's a whole nother ball of wax, and another don't poke the hive type with me because I'm very protective of this location, and the quality of life here is very important to me.

So big development.

I want to have some sense that they're gonna follow at least some of the conscientious things that we're only asking.

You all mess up, put the parking here or there.

What you use, the material.

I'm more into the natural aspect of it.

I didn't want artificial turf because of the heat it would generate.

I didn't want the issue of all windows or all cement.

Those are the heat and the moving of people through places that aren't even livable during certain temperatures because of those structures.

Those things are more me.

But what the problem is here, I just do not get.

Why can't you just let it be what you've put out as far as your your statements on the agenda?

Figure out where you all stand on it and go with it.

Y'all can talk about the nuts and bolts later.

We all want a car, so we know we need certain things.

And I don't want to stop them from having an area that their workers can be safe or comfortable, or that this community is gonna be excluded from instead of included in.

I can walk up to the Supreme Court.

I can go to the legislature, a campus I don't walk on unless I get permission.

And so I like to have it more inclusive, and I thought that the way it was written is fine, that would have the design, it would have the sense and the community character.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Paula Peters back again.

I just wanted to comment on the building design.

My friends and I thought it looked like something from the 1960s modern.

And so if you exempted them, you could end up with a really uh inappropriate architecture for the area.

So I know we talked about parking, but I'm also concerned about the way the building looked.

That's all.

All right, thank you.

Is there any other comment?

Hearing none.

Is there a motion in somebody's yes, sir?

Is that um open area the mall where all the um or the the grass and open area continues?

Is that open to the public?

Can anybody walk through there?

Because they would have business perhaps in the buildings.

Yeah, but that's not that's not what we're here for.

I understand, but I was just trying to get more clarification on campus.

Danny kind of referred to like can't go to the campus unless you got permission.

So you can walk through there in you know on real grass, maybe.

Okay, I need a motion.

Um I move to recommend to the board of supervisors denial of MPA 2026 000 7 based on the inability to make finding three as outlined in the staff report.

I'll second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second.

Is there any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed no motion carries six to zero.

Okay, item six Gregory Thank you, Mr.

Lewis.

Discussion and possible action regarding the election of a planning commission chair and vice chair for calendar year 2026.

I would like to put into um nomination.

Um Mr.

Borders again as planning chair for this upcoming year in 2026.

I'll second.

And uh is there a nomination for for vice chair.

Yes, I'd like to nominate Vern Cron for a second go round as coach.

I'll second.

All right, is there any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed no.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

You guys are fun to work with.

This has been a this has been a real hoot.

Maybe entertainment.

Staff report.

Okay, I'll give the community development report.

Um for as of the 27th, our valuation in January was 16 million, a little more than 16 million in terms of building permits, which brings total valuation in actually we're in 2026.

In 2025, it was 251 million essentially.

Um housing starts, 34 housing starts in January, 16 were single family detached, 18 single family attached, and we had 607 total housing starts in 2025.

Um Historic Resource Commission is getting ready for historic.

Um I think it's May or is it February?

It's historic preservation month.

May and so they're starting to work on who their award nominees will be.

They also did the zoning text amendment for uh moving a building from one site to another in the in the district.

It has to be a contributing building.

They did their annual report in the Flexion Chair and Vice Chair.

You know what you did tonight, so I won't go through that.

Code enforcement opened 55 cases in January.

They closed 82 cases and issued 19 parking tickets.

We had 41 new business licenses issued so far in January.

Um special events, the city Carson City Lights, Brewery Arts is putting on that program at um Mills Park February 5th, that will go on for a week, and then Wine Walk will be on February 7th.

Um in terms of your next meeting, you'll have that meeting in February 25th.

You're going to have the special use permit for a storage container on South Carson.

We're gonna have the master plan amendment for Lampa North.

I told you the board had initiated a number of master plan amendments, but we didn't have bandouets to get them all to you tonight.

So that one will come forward, but there will be the master plan amendment where we recognize that the state is subject to the jurisdiction of Carson City, and um I'll include the NRS.

We will have um a text.

I want to talk to you about potential text amendments for um townhouses and also for parking in the redevelopment area.

Right now we don't have an um an ordinance that speaks specifically to townhouses, and I think that may have a linkage with what we talked about in the master plan with getting investment in sort of the tired neighborhoods we called them.

I forget what we ended up calling them.

So I want to talk to you about that and whether it makes sense to initiate that, and we may have the state special use permit.

And um, that's it.

I thought storage containers were gonna be administrated.

This is a commercial location.

Oh, okay.

Umers, any anything?

Anyone?

All right.

Public comment.

that and we may have the state special use permit and um that's it i thought storage containers were gonna be administrated this is a commercial location oh okay um commissioners any anything anybody all right public comment we're gonna work you out tonight yeah three minutes this time for two months we could be able for it well actually I've stayed pretty calm Denny French Carson City I I sir I just want to tell you um my reasons for being away are mixed and I would talk to each of you independently of this meeting because I do care that you cared I appreciate that very much and I am very appreciative of the assistance that I was given uh by the council and um I try to do my due diligence and if I'm off base just say talk to talk to talk to Hope she'll clear you up or get you online the mayor had to clear me up a bit but I don't have access to her and she was sitting next to this manager and I didn't want to interfere I would have probably had a better understanding but thank you very much.

Okay any other comment motion to adjourn second